Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL

HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 February.

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration for Lords amendments read.

To be considered on Thursday 8 February.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 8 February.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Considered; to be read the Third time.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
(By Order)

VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL
(By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 February.

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 8 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Devolution

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about his recent statement on devolution.

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the discussions concerning the devolution of political power within Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): My speech in Bangor, Co. Down, on 9 January addressed the possibilities and prospects of transferring some degree of political power, authority and responsibility to politicians in Northern Ireland. There has been widespread reaction, none of it wholly unfavourable.
Much now depends on the willingness and ability of local politicians to find a way forward together. The Government are ready to help in any way they can to bring about talks between the parties. The next step is likely to be further discussions between the Government and the parties.

Mr. Gill: When my right hon. Friend looks at the new map of Europe, does he see any evidence that direct rule satisfies the needs of the people for democratic and popular government? Does he agree that the legitimate ambitions of peoples and nations to regain their institutions is important and that the closer Governments are to the people that they serve, the more economic, accountable and responsive they will be? Does he recognise that those are rhetorical questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such a long question is a very bad start to Question Time.

Mr. Brooke: I recognise that my hon. Friend's questions are rhetorical. Recently the Irish Times carried a cartoon, half of which was devoted to a crowd in eastern Europe saying to someone on a balcony, "Negotiate, Power to the people, Elections, Freedom." In the Northern Ireland version, I appeared to resemble the person on the balcony. I was saying the same things, but the crowd was saying nothing. I look forward to a reply.

Dr. Godman: Does the Secretary of State agree that matters in Northern Ireland are not helped by the obdurate behaviour of Allan Dukes and Fine Gael? That questionable behaviour brought about the cancellation of yesterday's Intergovernmental Conference. What further steps is he taking in the presentation of his case for devolution, in the light of the recent findings of the Belfast Telegraph-BBC "Newsnight" survey which showed that only 21 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland have any faith in a power-sharing arrangement? Will he give some sustenance to his colleagues in the Scottish Office on the principle of political devolution?

Mr. Brooke: As a former member of the Whips' Office, I make no comment on the practices of Opposition parties in the Dail. I studied the survey in the Belfast Telegraph,

but the hon. Gentleman may be forgetting that some of the questions had a second choice attached to them as well as a first.

Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in favour of a legislative assembly—

Hon. Members: Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are Northern Ireland questions.

Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in favour of a legislative assembly in Belfast?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I agree that we need to look at appropriate constitutional practices in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: As Northern Ireland is the only part of the British isles which does not have proper local government, is not there an urgent need to restore power to our local councils?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may not have meant to refer to the British isles, but, as he knows, conversations are going on about whether further powers may be transferred.

Mr. Stanbrook: Joking apart, the quickest way of breaking up the United Kingdom is by going for a policy of legislative devolution. How does my right hon. Friend justify his policy for devolution in Northern Ireland and reconcile it with the Government's opposition to devolution in Scotland?

Mr. Brooke: I was not joking when I said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I agree that we need appropriate constitutional arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have been exploring with politicians and parties in Northern Ireland how there might be a transfer of power and responsibility. In my speech in Bangor I simply gave what I thought was the considered view of the parties to whom we have spoken.

Mr. Hume: With regard to the Secretary of State's request to the parties of Northern Ireland today, will he confirm that on each occasion that I and my SDLP colleagues have met the right hon. Gentleman we have made unequivocally clear, without preconditions, our willingness to engage in talks on any subject with all the parties in Northern Ireland, and that further to that, in order to meet the express sensitivities of the Unionist parties, we are willing to seek with them an agreement which, by addressing all the dimensions of the problem, would transcend in importance any previous agreement ever made?

Mr. Brooke: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, save to say that saying that his position was wholly without preconditions might be overstating it a little.

Mr. Kilfedder: I commend my right hon. Friend on his speech in my constituency. As the leader of one of Northern Ireland political parties, I am willing to participate in the talks that my right hon. Friend has mentioned and to sit at the table for as long as is necessary


to produce. if possible, some constitutional progress, and I urge all leaders of constitutional parties to participate in those talks.

Mr. Brooke: As I said when I had the pleasure of visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency and welcoming him in the audience, I was delighted to be there, and I welcome the letter that he has since written to me stating his willingness to participate.

Community Workshops

Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will defer for a period of 12 months his proposals for the community workshops in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): No. I have listened carefully to the representations made to me in recent weeks and at my meeting on Monday with the workshops I told them of changes that the Government were prepared to make to meet their concerns.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for his response and I want to record the appreciation of the delegation from the workshops. The Minister was receptive and responsive to their needs and fears about their future, but will he give me an assurance today that the operation of workshops will be monitored closely during the next 12 months to ensure that there will be no insolvency and that they will be protected and supported so that they can provide and maintain jobs and training in areas of high unemployment?
Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland consider setting up a mechanism whereby the Under-Secretaries responsible for education and economic development could regularly meet the authorities representing further education in Northern Ireland to consider the main problems that they face and to endeavour to resolve them?

Mr. Needham: On the first part of the question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall work together and monitor closely how the community workshops get on. I have arranged a conference with representatives from them in the autumn, when we can all get together and discuss how progress is being made. The insolvency issue has a wider dimension because it is part of the regulations covering all company law, but we shall discuss it and see what can be done. I shall pass on the request in the final part of the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stott: I reinforce the request made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). Does the Minister agree that, having reached agreement with community workshops about the new youth training programme, his colleague in the Department of Education should turn his attention to the devastating effects that the proposals would have on further education-based YTP? Is it not the case that the Government intend to save money and that, as a result, the more expensive and high-quality further education-based YTP will disappear, leaving many of Northern Ireland's young people disadvantaged in the training they receive?

Mr. Needham: The basis of our proposals for the workshops is to improve the quality of training received

there. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are some good workshops in Northern Ireland and some that need to be brought up to the quality of the best. By introducing the new scheme we are ensuring that much more is done on employers' premises to get the youngsters involved in those workshops ready for the world of work, that we are sure will come about in the 1990s. Obviously, that requires an input from the further education colleges to give the generally broad training skills that young people need in the workshops.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I endorse what the previous speakers have said about the thanks that are due for the reappraisal of the scheme. Will the Minister give an assurance that if, with regard to solvency, the scheme does not come up to his expectations, he will look at it again?

Mr. Needham: I will discuss the matter carefully and see what can be done. I do not have a magic wand to solve the insolvency problem, but I am sure that, working together, we can find a sensible way round it.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next meet Ministers of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

Mr. Brooke: I expect to meet Mr. Collins shortly to discuss a number of important issues that were on the agenda of the postponed Intergovernmental Conference on 31 January.

Mr. Hunter: When my right hon. Friend next meets Ministers of the Republic will he express the disillusionment felt by many people about the Anglo-Irish Agreement—a one-way road if ever there was one? Will he also express the significance that many people see in the fact that all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now look for the end of direct rule?

Mr. Brooke: It would be a little hypocritical of me to express precisely the views of which my hon. Friend speaks, as I find the Anglo-Irish Agreement an extremely good vehicle for the conduct of business between Irish Ministers and me. As to his question, I have noted—as I am sure many hon. Members have—the results of the Belfast Telegraph poll.

Mr. Mallon: Has the disgraceful matter of the delay in holding inquests in the north of Ireland been raised in discussions with Irish Ministers? I know that the Secretary of State, as a man of compassion, will understand the suffering and distress that the delay causes the bereaved families. Will he extend those discussions with the Irish Government and his colleagues to ensure that inquests are held within a reasonable period, that Northern Ireland inquests have the right to bring in verdicts not findings and that all material witnesses can be compelled to attend and give evidence?

Mr. Brooke: I have, on past occasions, discussed inquests with Irish Ministers. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, although I do not know that the Government would wish to be involved in advancing each of his proposals.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State find it strange that there was no problem yesterday in suspending the meeting between Ministers from London and Dublin to save the Eire budget, yet it appears impossible for the Government to suspend the Anglo-Irish Agreement to save the lives of people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: I understand that the conference was cancelled yesterday because of pairing difficulties in the Dail. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are both former pairing Whips and thus have sympathy with that problem. I once brought the present Foreign Secretary home from Nepal for a vote that we won by 262–0. It made so deep an impression on him that he included it in his latest novel, although he reduced the majority to 17, thus proving again that truth is stranger than fiction.

Mr. William Ross: When the Secretary of State meets his opposite number in the Irish Republic, does he intend to discuss the implications of the Colin Wallace affair—and if not, why not? Do not certain aspects of that affair impinge upon the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. Brooke: Before coming to the House today, I inquired whether the Irish Government, through the secretariat, had raised that matter since my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces answered a written question on Tuesday. I understand that the Irish Government have not, so far, raised that matter, but I shall be meeting Irish Ministers again in the future, when it may arise.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. Collins and his colleagues, will he tell them that, contrary to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), a great majority of hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, still believe in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he also tell them that a great majority of Members support everything that he is doing to try to bring devolution to Northern Ireland, as that will be in the interests of its people and will give them greater local power?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Mr. Jim Marshall: As one former Whip to another, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State that will show that truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. When the right hon. Gentleman next discusses economic matters with his Irish counterparts, will he confirm that when Shorts was privatised the Government retained ownership of four leasing companies? Will he give the reasons for doing so? Was it because of taxation or was it because Bombardier refused to accept any potential loss on those leases? Is any employee of the four leasing companies retained by the Government also working for the newly privatised Shorts company?

Mr. Brooke: The points about Shorts to which the hon. Gentleman referred were part of the original negotiations and arrangements. In the context of the leasing companies, it was not easy to calibrate the consequences. Shorts Brothers, under Bombardier's ownership, has an agreement with the Government for the management of those arrangements, which were built into the deal that we made.

Preventive Health Care

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the promotion of preventive health care; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: The Government have made health promotion a major priority in developing health and social services in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend recognises the increasingly important part played by preventive medicine in the National Health Service throughout the country. Can he reassure the House that the funding for such a programme in Northern Ireland is on a par with that in the remainder of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Needham: Indeed, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We intend to spend £900,000 in the coming year on health promotion in Northern Ireland, which is an increase in budget of about 50 per cent. It has always been said that there was a higher chance of having a heart attack after an Ulster breakfast than after breakfast anywhere else in the world. It is certainly true that there is a very good chance of being well treated in Ulster. During the past five years the incidence of heart attacks has been reduced
by about 15 per cent. One reason for that is the Government's emphasis on and determination to follow a health promotion campaign.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister expand on his answer to me of 14 November and explain how the new remuneration system for doctors will help to prevent heart disease, promote the cessation of smoking, and alleviate stress-related complaints?

Mr. Needham: The general practitioners' new contract will help to achieve exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks, as it requires them to offer patients aged between 16 and 74 consultation when they require it. Bonuses will be paid to doctors who achieve particular immunisation rates. The whole point of the new contract is to meet the targets that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I am sure that in fulfilling that new contract, the vast majority of the medical profession in Northern Ireland will improve the health of the Province's population by extending the preventive aspects of their work.

Road Casualties

Mr. Kilfedder: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of road casualties in the Province at the current time and in previous years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): In the 1960s, Northern Ireland had the best road safety record of any region or part of the United Kingdom. Since 1986, it has had the worst. Northern Ireland can return to having the safest roads. That is the aim of the road casualty reduction programme launched last autumn. One hundred and eighty-one people died on the roads in 1989.

Mr. Kilfedder: I congratulate my hon. Friend on promoting the "Don't drink and drive" campaign, which has helped to reduce the number of casualties, but does he agree that praise is due also to others who have


contributed to the reduction in the carnage on the roads—including the media, which gave publicity to the road safety campaign?

Mr. Bottomley: If people can have their consciousness and awareness raised with the help of brewers, pubs and off-licences, fewer of them will be offered drink before driving—and drink is still the biggest factor linked with death on the roads. It is important to reach the target of cutting road deaths in Northern Ireland from an average of 210 to 140 per year. That saving of 70 lives per year would probably be very welcome in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In view of the Minister's obvious and much-publicised concern for road safety, will he explain why his own Department's officials do not seem to share his views? They refused to allow the completion of the bypass of Killead and the dangerous A26, and they are very much against road crossings—particularly in Fountain street, Antrim.

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will meet me so that we can discuss those issues. One problem is that a number of hon. Members keep away from Ministers. Perhaps we can start working together instead.

Rev. William McCrea: Given the Minister's interest in road safety in Northern Ireland, does he agree that his Department should demonstrate more concern for achieving uniform salting and gritting of roads in the Province? Drivers passing from one council's area into another are lulled into a sense of false security and then become involved in accidents. Will the Minister take a personal interest in that matter?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, I will. However, I should not want the hon. Gentleman to promote the idea that road casualty reductions are a matter of concern to me only. Road safety councils throughout Northern Ireland have been working on that problem far longer than I have. One reason why road deaths are down from 300 to 200 and will, we hope, reduce further, is because of all their work. Of course, I shall try to ensure that there is consistency in road salting, but I ask all drivers to prepare for bad road conditions and not to assume that the Government can wave a magic wand and save them from the consequences of their own driving.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to announce any further initiatives to promote economic co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland specifically in the border areas.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference initiated last year a systematic programme of assessment of all the main sectors, to determine where the process of social and economic co-operation can most fruitfully be expanded. The first result of that work is a joint Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland paper outlining possible programme measures that both Governments would wish to see supported under the European Community's transfrontier initiative. The paper is in the final stages of agreement and will, I hope, shortly be submitted to the Commission.

Mr. Evans: As areas on both sides of the border are suffering serious economic deprivation, which is leading to depopulation, do the Government have any plans post-1992 to discuss further with both the Irish Government and the European Commission proposals for improving prosperity in those areas?

Mr. Cope: Yes. The paper is about improving prosperity in the border areas that the hon. Gentleman mentions and covers many economic activities. It deals also with making use of wider co-operation in helping all parts of the island of Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the damage being done to the economies of border towns by the refusal of the Government of the south of Ireland to allow their citizens to visit those towns for shopping expeditions? When did he last raise that issue with the Government of the south of Ireland? Will the Northern Ireland Office be represented at the forthcoming case in the European Court at Luxembourg?

Mr. Cope: We raised it at our last meeting with Irish Ministers. But more importantly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is coming before the European Court. The United Kingdom Government will be represented at those hearings.

Mr. McGrady: I refer the Minister to the reply I received from the Secretary of State on 14 December at column 1156 in Hansard where he gave a not unfavourable reply to the request to set up a cross-border economic committee to look into the consequences of the Single European Act with particular reference to the harmonisation of VAT, fiscal rates and a common currency. What progress has been made since that date?

Mr. Cope: We did not quite agree with the agenda, but, apart from that, most of the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are being discussed through the European Community.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: I last met Ministers from the Irish Republic at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 30 November 1989. The joint statement issued afterwards was placed in the Library. A meeting of the Conference was due to be held on 31 January but was postponed due to the unavailability of Irish Ministers.

Mr. Ross: How would the right hon. Gentleman have explained to the Irish Government how that part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that seeks to improve public confidence in the security forces would have been advanced by the Government's handling of the Colin Wallace affair?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement on that matter


later this afternoon. For me to engage in what Irish Ministers and I would have said to each other yesterday is not perhaps the most constructive use of the House's time.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that increased prosperity will contribute to the defeat of terrorism in the Province and the Republic? What progress is being monitored in discussions about the increase in inward investment to the Province and the Republic and how does the Northern Ireland Development Board, whose success we all admire, work with its counterpart in the Republic?

Mr. Brooke: I am glad to agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution that jobs and fuller employment make towards the security situation in Northern Ireland. As to collaboration with the Republic, both the Republic and ourselves are vividly aware that we are in competition for inward investment and sometimes find ourselves directly competing.

Mr. Molyneaux: At the last Conference did the British team put forward suggestions for the consideration of a new and more workable Agreement? Did they urge the necessity of the reasonable request for the suspension of the present Agreement for a limited period? If they did not, will they do so at the next meeting in view of Mr. Haughey's more flexible attitude?

Mr. Brooke: Immediately after the last Conference I said that suspension had not been discussed. However the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of paragraph 29 of the review of the Agreement that we published last year which stated that both Governments would be prepared to consider without preconditions any propositions put before them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that it is a subject which we will discuss at future Conferences.

Mr. Bill Walker: Did my right hon. Friend discuss at the Intergovernmental Conference the proposals for some form of local government in Northern Ireland? If he did, did those attending the Intergovernmental Conference think it was a good idea, and if they did not, can they tell us why?

Mr. Brooke: That subject has not been discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference since I became Secretary of State.

Mr. Duffy: This week's RAF involvement in air-sea rescue missions off Westport and in the Irish sea raises once again the question of the adequacy of the emergency services on both sides of the Irish sea and as between the north and the south of Ireland. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the quality and liaison of such services are a proper subject for the Intergovernmental Conference? As such air-sea rescues increasingly now involve foreign vessels, especially Spanish fishing vessels, will he explore with his colleagues in Dublin the need for international funding of such provision, the burden of which is mostly now borne—magnificently, of course—by the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman makes a constructive suggestion. I do not know whether it would fall naturally within the agenda of a Conference, but it is quite clearly something which could be discussed in the margin of a Conference even if it were not on the agenda.

Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State referred earlier to a statement that will be made later today, but in the answer given earlier this week a matter referred to which was the responsibility of the Secretary of State—the role of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In the light, therefore, of truth being stranger than fiction, and of the Colin Wallace allegations, will he now order a complete investigation into Mr. Wallace's allegations concerning the Kincora boys home? Will he also give a complete guarantee that Mr. Wallace will not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for any information concerning that affair and concerning the security forces that he might give to the RUC? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to give serious consideration to the evidence published by Mr. Paul Foot and the forensic report drawn up by Mr. Radley suggesting that Mr. Wallace's memorandum concerning the events in the Kincora boys home is genuine?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman would, I think, be the first to acknowledge that this does not naturally fall within the purview of the main question. However, to be helpful to the House, if Mr. Wallace has evidence that he wishes to submit in relation to the Kincora affair, he should give that evidence to the RUC and if it is classified information he should first consult the director of Army security. As to forensic evidence, I owe the hon. Gentleman a letter.

Mr. Ashdown: Following on that answer, will the Secretary of State at least give the House an unequivocal assurance that no Clockwork Orange-type of operation is now taking place in Northern Ireland or in any part of the United Kingdom on matters relating to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave a very specific response on that very question in the answer that he gave on Tuesday.

Employment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about employment trends since 1983.

Mr. Needham: At September 1989, there were an estimated 514,000 employees in employment. This showed a slight increase from the level a year earlier and was some 13,700 higher than five years earlier.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that record is somewhat superior to that of the Republic, where there has been a 40,000 reduction in the number of people in industrial employment since 1982? Do not these differences underline the fact that the social market economy rather than the social charter is the best engine of economic progress?

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the social charter will have much benefit for the Northern Ireland economy. However, in the 1990s it is crucial for us to be able to sell ourselves on our merits, which are very substantial. We have a bright, young, well-educated work force, low labour costs and an attractive grants package, and there is no conceivable reason why we should not do better in the 1990s than we have been able to do in the 1980s.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Secretary of State give immediate consideration to the need to protect the remaining jobs at


GEC-Alsthom at Larne in my constituency where 200 redundancies have been announced because of Government policy not to order new nuclear and, indeed, coal-fired stations? Will the Secretary of State therefore endeavour to seek Government approval to proceed with the Kilroot phase II project, which might help save some jobs there?

Mr. Needham: I am not responsible for the purchasing policy of the nuclear power industry or of National Power and PowerGen. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland is working as closely as it can with GEC to find alternative orders.

Housing

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of construction of the average public sector dwelling in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The average tender costs were about £21,700 for 1986–87, £22,400 for 1987–88, and £22,800 last year.
Our goals are to meet urgent housing need and to improve housing conditions in Northern Ireland in rural as well as urban areas.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Housing Executive on the effective way in which it has added to housing stock? Will he assure the House that he is pushing the right to buy, which is the most effective way of involving people in communities and home ownership? What is he doing to add to the resources of the Housing Executive?

Mr. Bottomley: All who work for the executive and its members will be grateful for that tribute—which I know will be paid by the whole House—regarding the non-sectarian way in which housing is administered in Northern Ireland. The promotion of the right to buy has been assisted by the arrangements that we have made to add to the executive's resources. Gross resources available in Northern Ireland will be increased by £17 million compared with the previous plans for 1990–91, and spending on housing in the current year has increased by £12 million because of an increase in receipts from house sales and additional resources provided by the Government.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the major housing problem in Northern Ireland is rural housing, to which the urban development grant system did not apply? Is the Department reviewing its approach to housing in rural areas?

Mr. Bottomley: That is an important point. Half of all unfit houses are now in rural areas. It is important to continue the attack on bad conditions in towns and in the countryside. It is becoming clearer that we need a policy of rural improvement to improve housing and, where possible, to use the skills of local people in rural areas rather than outside contractors. We have not yet found a way forward, but we are certainly considering the problem.

Mr. Cecil A. Walker: The Minister must be aware of the swingeing cuts in the Housing Executive's budget over the past three years, which has resulted in a 30 per cent. decrease in new house building. I am sure that he is also aware that repairs in the rehabilitation sector have been drastically reduced and that enveloping schemes are now being discontinued. We welcome extra resources, but will the Minister please consider using the Belfast action teams on the necessary environmental works that are urgently required in vandalised areas?

Mr. Bottomley: With the exception of saying that there should be a large new-build programme, which is not necessarily what Northern Ireland needs, the House will agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. It is important to ensure environmental improvement so that housing areas are good inside and outside their front doors to create an uplift in Northern Ireland.

Security Forces

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to promote public confidence in the security forces.

Mr. Cope: We attach great importance to encouraging widespread public support for, and confidence in, the police and Army in Northern Ireland as they perform their difficult and dangerous tasks. Careful and constant attention is given to ways of improving relations between them and all parts of the community.

Mr. McAvoy: The Minister will be aware that in the past both communities in Northern Ireland have complained about the activities of some RUC officers. Does he accept that Sir John Hermon, by failing to resign, successfully blackmailed the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland into not prosecuting RUC officers after the shoot-to-kill investigations? Will the Minister give an assurance that no one in Northern Ireland is above the law and that he will not give in to similar blackmail?

Mr. Cope: I happily give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I do not accept the premise of the earlier part of his question.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that confidence in the security forces would be helped forward if certain unsolved murders were solved? Will he assure me that instead of leaving the Enniskillen massacre in the hands of the local police he will ensure that a special branch unit will work in Enniskillen until that terrible massacre is solved and the people responsible for it are brought to justice?

Mr. Cope: I absolutely agree about the necessity to solve as many of these terrible unsolved murders in Northern Ireland as we possibly can. The hon. Gentleman's particular request is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, but I will certainly pass it on to him. Both the Chief Constable and I would like nothing better than to see that murder in particular solved.

Mr. Mallon: Does the Minister agree that the surest way of increasing confidence in the security forces is for the community to see that they act within the law at all times? Does he further agree that that applies not just to the behaviour of the security forces but to all involved in


Government in the north of Ireland, who should remember the Lord Denning dictat that be you ever so high, the law is above you?

Mr. Cope: It is, of course, important that all members of the security forces and, indeed, everybody else concerned with government and so on, and the public, should remain within the rule of law, and that is what we support entirely.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February 1990.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Blunkett: Does the Prime Minister agree that in her speech to the National Childrens Home regarding the responsibility of fathers for the physical and financial well-being of their children living in a separate household, she understood that she would strike a chord with many people who normally do not agree with her policies? Will she tell the House why, among other policies that discriminate against fathers who try to take that responsibility, the Government in 1988 introduced a Budget which imposed income tax on payments made by fathers to their children in a way that helps to sustain them in a fashion that hon. Members in all parts of the House would wish to see?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about that speech—that fathers should take responsibility for children, particularly for illegitimate children, because they need the support. As he will be aware, there will be changes in taxation for married couples coming into force in the new financial year, and I shall put the particular point he raises to the Chancellor.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February 1990.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: After so many years of acrimonious dissent, does my right hon. Friend not think it rather optimistic to expect the Northern Ireland party political leaders to reach some agreement over a devolved administration for their Province? Instead, perhaps the Government should set up a review into the shape and structure of regional and local government in Northern Ireland. I remind her that it is exactly 20 years since Sir Patrick McCrory produced his report on the structure of local government in Northern Ireland. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new review would be a timely contribution ahead of any talks that may take place between the party political leaders?

The Prime Minister: We would all wish to see greater involvement in local government in Northern Ireland of local government people. We have considered that on many occasions and put it to the several parties. I do not think that we could bring it in unless we had the agreement of the different parties to proper devolved local government, and we have not yet succeeded in that. My right hon. Friend has asked the parties to come in and talk, and I am sure that that would be one of the first matters that he would wish to put to them.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has made it clear this week that she was given seriously inaccurate information about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace and that that incorrect information caused her to mislead the House. Will she therefore, as head of the Security Services, make a full statement to the House? Will she also commission a form of inquiry that has the power to ensure that the full truth is told about the alleged efforts to discredit public figures and Members of Parliament of several parties, including her party, and to subvert elected Governments?

The Prime Minister: First, my statement to the House on 6 May 1987 stands. It is not affected by the new information. Secondly, Mr. Wallace was a civil servant employed by the Ministry of Defence at the Army headquarters in Northern Ireland as an information officer. It seems right, therefore, that a statement was made by a Minister at the Ministry of Defence on Tuesday and will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence today. The statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces indicated that there is an inquiry into Mr. Wallace's case before the Civil Service appeal board, to be conducted by Mr. Calcutt QC and there is also an inquiry in the Ministry of Defence on how certain documents came to be overlooked.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry, but that answer does not begin to address the very basic questions. I put it to the Prime Minister that the information which, in her words, has "now come to light" somewhat offsets the credibility of her statement in May 1987 that there was "no evidence" of misuse of information by any members of the security services. Surely, that fact alone justifies a full inquiry.
As the Wallace case raises serious issues of civil liberties and serious allegations of efforts to discredit Members of Parliament and to undermine elected Governments, it would be intolerable if the Prime Minister proposed to do absolutely nothing other than to hide behind anonymous civil servants.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's assertions are correct. In so far as new information came forth, and in so far as that has affected earlier statements, the details were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and set out in very considerable detail in his statement to the House. My own statement on 6 May 1987 was not affected by the new information and the new information provides no evidence of attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers. This is a matter of the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case to the Civil Service appeal board. That has been put correct. In so far as the new information affected anything that Ministers have said during this Administration, we came straight to the House, a statement was made and letters were written to people who might otherwise have had incorrect information. The


statement was, in accordance with tradition, shown to the former Ministers with responsibility for defence and for Northern Ireland in the previous Labour Administration and their comments were invited.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not the Prime Minister aware that throughout the House and among wider interested parties, there is a strong opinion that neither the Calcutt inquiry, for all its worth, nor the internal inquiry by the Ministry of Defence is broad enough or open enough to satisfy the public interest? Can she explain how she made a statement in May 1987, based honestly on the evidence that then existed, and how, by her own reckoning, new evidence, new details and new facts have "now come to light"? How can she claim, in the light of all those circumstances, that her statement then still stands and should not be liable to any form of reconsideration or revision?

The Prime Minister: Because, for the third time of asking, the new information does not provide any evidence to undermine my statement to the House on 6 May 1987. It is of a much narrower kind than that, as was set out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his very detailed statement, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman for detailed reading.

Mr. Heseltine: Will my right hon. Friend recognise the seriousness of the description of the Leader of the Opposition about the events that are alleged to have taken place? Which Government were in power when those events took place?

The Prime Minister: The documents that have been mentioned refer to events in 1974–75, a very long time ago, which is why the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was, of course, shown to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and to Lord Mason, Lord Carrington and Lord Whitelaw. Comments were invited. These are matters which occurred in 1975 or earlier.

Mr. Rees: The fact that Lord Carrington and Lord Whitelaw were brought into the consultations—and most of the documents—proves that what happened against many of us took place in 1971, 1972 and 1973. It is no good saying that it was just under a Labour Government. The right hon. Lady was a loyal member of the Cabinet at that time. Surely it is not just a matter of a Labour Government. It went on under both Governments. Indeed, there is evidence that the Prime Minister of the day was maligned as well. Surely what the right hon. Lady said about the dirty tricks of Wright cannot possibly cover what has now been revealed.

The Prime Minister: Once again I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement which he saw and which was made in very full detail. These events took place about 15 years ago. There is nothing in the new information which was the cause of the statement to the House which casts doubt on my own statement of 6 May 1987, which was about very much wider matters.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recruitment of more paramedically qualified staff to the ambulance service is needed to improve the service? Will she confirm that an offer has been made that will enhance that recruitment? Does she share my puzzlement that the union leaders seem to be opposed to it?

The Prime Minister: In the ambulance service, particularly the accident and emergency part of the service, we need more people with higher medical qualifications. At the moment there are very few—too few in our view—for the topmost efficiency of the service. That is why those people have been offered a 16·3 per cent. increase in pay over an 18-month period. It is to attract those people into the service which we wish to improve.

Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Prime Minister for the fact that at least in her letter to the Treasury Select Committee, by way of its Chairman, she expressed regret that in letters she had previously sent there were errors as a result of the false information which she had been given. Now that she has expressed this personal regret, and yet again has had to give account for things that happened before she took office as Prime Minister, and for the fact that she had to relay to the House information that has proved to be incorrect, will she not think again both about the need for a wider inquiry into the implications of this matter and about the accountability of the security services? Is it not the case that when Ministers are not directly answerable to Parliament for things, those things are less adequately covered by civil servants' accountability to them?

The Prime Minister: In so far as there have been statements made that were incorrect or needed clarification, we came to the House and corrected those statements immediately. I think that that is greatly to the Government's credit. As soon as there was a need for a statement, we made it. With regard to the Security Service, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there was legislation that set up both a commissioner and a tribunal. That was a great advance, and I do not think we need any further inquiries now.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that this issue is far wider than the mere dismissal of Colin Wallace? Does not she know that at the Northern Ireland Assembly all the parties called for a public sworn inquiry into the Kincora scandal? These things will not go away, and the time has come for a full, open and honest uncovering of these matters so that people in Northern Ireland may know that the dirty tricks that were carried on have come to an end. Surely those at the receiving end have a right to have their say and put their case.

The Prime Minister: The new information in the papers does not in any way substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations in respect of the Kincora boys home. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has already been an inquiry into the matter, and the new information does not affect that; nor does it provide any evidence of attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers. My statement of 6 May 1987 therefore stands.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: There is growing support for the ambulance crews who are in dispute with the authorities


and with the Government, and the Prime Minister is becoming more and more isolated in her stance. Even more concern is being expressed over the harder line being taken by management and some police authorities. After an accident in my constituency on Sunday night, crews were turned away by the police in favour of the Red Cross. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I cannot obtain an answer. I need an assurance from the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Prime Minister a question.

Mr. Michie: May we have an assurance from the Prime Minister and the Government that she is not instructing

the police or management to frustrate the work that the ambulance crews are trying to do in dealing with incidents of this nature? We need that assurance now.

The Prime Minister: The police have had to step in where the accident and emergency services were not operating properly—and we all wish that they had been operating properly. As for the pay claim and the offer that has been made, many people would consider that an amount varying between 9 and 16·3 per cent.—for the more highly qualified—is reasonable. We expect those who deal with sick people, and on whom those sick people rely, to return to their first duty.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on agriculture on a motion to take note of EC documents, details of which will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, motions on social security benefit uprating orders and regulations. Afterwards motions on other social security regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (6th Alloted Day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Scottish Economy".
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to rights of residence. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I2 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill.
It may be for the convenience of the House Mr. Speaker, to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House will rise for the Easter recess on Thursday 5 April until Wednesday 18 April.

[Tuesday 6 February

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) COM(89)660
Agricultural Price Proposals 1990–91


(b) 7010/89
Adjustments of agricultural structures


(c) 8309/89
Milk Quotas


(d) 8877/89


(e) OJ C128
Agrimonetary System (Court of Auditors Special Report No. 1/89)


(f) Un-numbered
Non-food Agricultural Commodities


(g) SEC(89)2097
Agricultural Situation: 1989 Report


(h) 8076/89
Set-aside of arable land


(i) 10912/89
Sheepmeat Regime: heavy lambs


(j) 7548/89
Monitoring of export refunds


(k) 7549/89
Scrutiny of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guarantee Section) expenditure


(l) 10850/89


(m) 7566/89
Physical inventory checks for intervention stocks


(n) Un-numbered
Sheepmeat and goatmeat Regime

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 11-vii ( 1989–90) para 6 and HC 11-viii (1989–90) para 1
(b) HC 11-v (1989–90) para 2
(c) HC 15-xxxii ( 1988–89) para 5 and HC 11-iii (1989–90) para 2

(d) HC 15-xxxvii (1988–89) para 4
(e) HC 15-xxvi ( 1988–89) para 2
(f) HC 11-vii (1989–90) para 5
(g) HC 11-viii (1989–90) para 8
(h) HC 15-xxx ( 1988–89) para 5
(i) HC 11-v (1989–90) para 9
(j) HC 15-xxix (1988–89) para 5
(k) HC 15-xxix (1988–89) para 5
(l) HC 11-vi (1989–90) para 5
(m) HC 15-xxviii (1988–89) para 6
(n) HC 15-xxxiv (1988–89) para 19

Wednesday 7 February

Until about Seven o'clock:

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order

Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations

Afterwards:

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Regular Employment) Regulations

Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations

Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Regulations (Opposition prayer EDM 424)

Income Support (Transitional) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations (Opposition prayer EDM 422)

Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations (Opposition prayer EDM 256)

Thursday 8 February

Relevant European Community Document 7706/89 Rights of Residence

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

HC. 15-xxxv (1988–89) para 1, HC 11-v (1989–90) para 1

and HC 11-vii (1989–90) para 1]

Dr. Cunningham: In view of the importance of public expenditure to all of us and our constituents, is the Leader of the House yet able to tell us when we can have a debate on the Government's public expenditure White Paper?
Given the widely reported news that the Top Salaries Review Body is recommending that judges, senior civil servants and officers in the armed forces are to be given salary increases of 13 per cent., will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Health to explain why people on high salaries are to be given such large increases, for which taxpayers will be obliged to pay, while the taxpayers themselves are denied the opportunity to fund a more generous settlement for ambulance personnel—something which they would be very happy indeed to do? Are not we entitled to an explanation of the perversity of Government decisions and of the unfairness of Government decisions in respect of ambulance workers?
Given the Prime Minister's very serious admission this week that she and other Ministers, albeit unwittingly, had given the House of Commons false information in respect of the Colin Wallace affair, is not it now clear that we in the Labour party have always been right in demanding that the security services be made accountable to Parliament? Is not it now obvious that we need greater accountability on the part of the security services to this House? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on this important matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already told the House in answer to an earlier question from the hon. Gentleman, I hope to arrange a debate on the public expenditure White Paper in the relatively near future. Obviously, the precise planning will have to be left to the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman's second point concerned the announcement being made today of the Government's reaction to the reports of the various review bodies. He will know that that announcement is being made in accordance with practice established over many years: in the form of a written answer—indeed, I think, more than one. If the hon. Gentleman studies those matters carefully—and they deserve careful study—he will find that they relate to the levels of pay and remuneration for the financial year that has not yet started. He will recollect that the ambulance workers' pay claim relates to a year in which virtually every other group of workers in the National Health Service has settled. Virtually all the ambulance workers' colleagues have already settled at substantially lower figures. That is the point that needs to be taken into account.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, may I say that there will no doubt be a number of further discussions about the matters arising from the statement made earlier this week, and the statement that will be made later this afternoon. There will also be two Adjournment debates on related topics in the week ahead.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that we are to have a very important statement. May I urge hon. Members who could keep their questions for another time to do so? I should like to get on to the statement by about 4 o'clock.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If my right hon. and learned Friend saw "Newsnight" last night he will be aware that the Government's proposal to go back on their election commitment not to open up more immigration to this country is rejected by two people out of three. Will he arrange an early debate so that the people of Hong Kong may realise that the commitment erroneously given by the Government will not be sustained by the House of Commons?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question will have to be judged when the matter comes before the House in the appropriate fashion. My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a very full statement on this matter after his return from Hong Kong. It is my impression that that statement was very widely supported on both sides of the House.

Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the dates of the Easter recess. Those of us who try to combine something of a family life with our parliamentary duties welcome his early announcement and hope that we can encourage him in this practice.
Has he had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 415 on drugs in sport?
[That this House notes with dismay and alarm events at the Commonwealth Games in Auckland which have resulted in competitors from the United Kingdom being tested positively for drugs; expresses its concern at the failure of Her Majesty's Government to bring anabolic steriods within the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and to make their

possession and supply criminal offences; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to cease its procrastination and either to introduce legislation for this purpose or to endorse the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East due for Second Reading on Friday 2 March, which is to the same effect.]
I am sure that he shares the dismay felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House at the fact that these Commonwealth Games, like the Olympics before them —which ought to have been celebrations of excellence—have been marred by the cheating of drug taking. Can he give an undertaking that the Government will make an early announcement that they will bring in their own provisions to outlaw the taking of anabolic steroids or, alternatively, that they will support the private Member's Bill of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of my announcement about the Easter recess. It is clearly desirable to proceed as far as is possible in the direction of giving people a greater assurance about such arrangements as far ahead as we can.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the concern that is widely felt about the evidence of drug taking in sporting activities. The importation and supply of anabolic steroids and similar drugs are subject to controls under the Medicines Act 1968. The Government are considering whether those controls should be strengthened.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give urgent consideration to providing the Opposition with an extra Supply day so that they can bring forward for discussion their tax proposals which, as The Independent has shown this morning, could well mean that over a period of time taxpayers who earn between £18,000 and £30,000 might be charged an extra £4,000 per annum in tax?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that important evidence about the high tax policies that are now being canvassed by the Labour party. We should be grateful to The Independent, whose birth is owed to the greater prosperity of that industry under this Government, for giving clear publicity to such important information.

Mr. Tony Benn: Two questions: first, are the Church measures coming forward soon; and secondly—

Hon. Members: No—one.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should ask only one question at business questions.

Mr. Benn: In that case, I shall leave that question.
Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a widespread feeling across the House that a Select Committee of the House—preferably the Select Committee on Privileges—should be allowed to hear the evidence submitted by Colin Wallace? As this point has been taken up by the Opposition, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is a matter on which I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, can he say when he will be bringing forward a motion to permit that reference to be made?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman understands, I think, that questions of privilege are submitted in the first instance to you, Mr. Speaker, for your determination, before I can take any action whatsoever. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that he will have the opportunity of raising the very case with which he is concerned on the Adjournment debate on Monday week. He can develop his case then.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Following last week's inconclusive conference at Geneva on the Vietnamese boat people, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House next week to tell us what steps he is taking to improve conditions in the camps, to improve the screening procedure for the boat people in Hong Kong, and to set up an adequate monitoring service in Vietnam to look after the returned boat people?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that considerable progress was made at last week's conference to complete international agreement. All the participating countries, with the exceptions of the United States and Vietnam, agreed that the mandatory repatriation of non-refugees would start on 1 July 1990, with full international monitoring. I shall bring my hon. Friend's additional points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who may consider the points that he has made.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that 13 people infected with AIDS due to routine blood transfusions have now died and that others face early death? Is he also aware that the ex gratia payment of £20,000 given to people infected with AIDS by blood products is not paid in transfusion cases? In view of the recent announcement by Canada's Health Minister that his Government will treat both cases equally for compensation, may we have a statement next week, hopefully, one that follows Canada's lead?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer an immediate answer to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friends at the Department of Health.

Mr. James Pawsey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any detailed knowledge of the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner and of the Select Committee covering the Parliamentary Commissioner? Does he agree that there would be a substantial benefit if the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner and of the Select Committee were debated on the Floor of the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, I have discussed that point with the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The usual pattern is that particular cases and reports that deserve attention are dealt with on the Floor of the House in the way that my hon. Friend describes. So far, there has not been a pattern of providing regular debates on matters dealt with by that Select Committee.

Mr. John D. Taylor: It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is division within the Government on devolution, as borne out by the recent speech by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in favour of it and another speech by the hon. Member for

Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) which dismissed devolution as constitutional nonsense. Will the Leader of the House bring forward a motion as soon as possible to outline the Government's policy towards devolution throughout the United Kingdom?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That point was dealt with in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a while ago. He said that all members of the Government, particularly those affected by devolution matters are in continuous consultation on devolution in different parts of the Kingdom. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will study with care my right hon. Friend's speech, which received widespread commendation although the right hon. Gentleman may not have been quite so optimistic about it.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the deteriorating security situation in the Province? In the first few days of this year in my constituency, a young business man and part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment has been murdered, two young men are in intensive care having lost their legs in a terrorist bomb attack—both were members of the UDR—the village of Sion Mills in my constituency has been flattened in a matter of days and one of my colleagues on the Magherafelt district council has been the subject of an attempted murder. Does not that merit a full-scale debate in Government time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman emphasises the impact of terrorism on his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and all members of the Government are aware of the importance of that. That is why we continue to maintain our campaign against terrorism as vigorously as possible. I shall take into account what the hon. Gentleman said in considering the programme for the weeks ahead.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his derisory reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) a few minutes ago about what form of inquiry or debate the House will hold on matters that are causing widespread anxiety throughout the country and the House? Is it not absurd that the Leader of the House should suggest that the whole matter could be dealt with in an Adjournment debate? Surely he should consider what form of general inquiry should be held. That is what the Government will be forced to do eventually, so why does he not use his authority to initiate an inquiry sooner rather than later? In the meantime will he make sure that a sufficient number of copies of Paul Foot's book on Colin Wallace are placed in the Library so that the misinformed members of his party can catch up with the rest of us?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I am in the business of promoting the business of the Foot family. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a statement and produced a document on Tuesday dealing fully with that matter. That is an exemplar of the way in which the Government have sought to respond to any legitimate cause of anxiety about the matters raised in the book. There have been a range of inquiries. The outcome of the most recent investigations was fully reported to the


House in the answers given on Tuesday. There is no case for further inquiries such as the right hon. Gentleman requests.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make an early announcement about the way in which the Government propose to deal with the legislation on immigration from Hong Kong? Does he agree that the proposals are clearly a flagrant breach of the promises that were made by the Conservative party and that they involve a permanent change in the nature and composition of the British people? As there is no urgent need for the proposals, would it not be better to debate the matter on the Floor of the House so that the Government have a full opportunity to persuade the British people, against the wishes of some of us, to approve of the proposals rather than sending them for more private and disciplined consideration in Committee?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will know that procedures designed for the passage of legislation through the House include its consideration in the ordinary way by Standing Committee. This legislation will be brought before and debated by the House in the ordinary way and it will receive the consideration that it deserves. I must repudiate absolutely the suggestion that the legislation, when it comes forward, will represent a breach of any kind of breach, let alone a flagrant breach, by the Government.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many people in my constituency are in receipt of invalid care allowance and I received the answer that that figure was not available. Will the Leader of the House please look into that and try to discover why that figure is not available since the local DSS office must surely know who is in receipt of that benefit?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer for the statistical pattern of information available, but I shall bring the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time, additional to that allocated on the Order Paper today, to discuss the five important motions that will affect the rights that Back-Bench Members have enjoyed for decades? As we are to have an important statement this afternoon, which will inevitably eat into the time allowed for that debate, and as that debate must finish at 7 o'clock, not much more than an hour and a half will be available. Given the importance of the motions to be considered, does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that that is sufficient?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that that is one reason why you, Mr. Speaker, have said that this is a case for a shorter than usual time to be allotted to business questions. My hon. Friend will also understand that the motions are the result of recommendations from the Select Committee on Procedure and that they have been before the House for consideration for a long time.

Mr. Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent statement on the issue of compensation for Christmas

island veterans? The Leader of the House is aware of the case of my constituent, John Hall, which was highlighted in early-day motion 37.
[That this House condemns the Government's policy towards compensation for ex-servicemen, like Mr. John Hall of Belgrave, Leicester, who served on Christmas Island during the nuclear tests in the 1950's and who as a result of this are suffering from the effects of exposure to radiation; and calls upon the Government to seize this opportunity to show compassion and justice by awarding substantial compensation to our Christmas Island veterans without further delay.]
Mr. Hall is dying of leukaemia and he has five separate medical reports which connect his serious illness to the events on Christmas Island. Today, with all-party support, he began legal proceedings against the Government because of their failure to pay compensation. Does not the Leader of the House believe that it would be fair and just in all the circumstances of these cases if the Government were to save Mr. Hall the agony of High Court proceedings and pay the compensation that those veterans so richly deserve?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is more than familiar with the background to the topic. He knows that, despite our sympathy with any particular case, we see no reason to make special compensation arrangements for test veterans. On the other hand, we are ready to pay appropriate compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability is established and where there is firm evidence to show that, on a balance of probabilities, ex-service men have suffered ill health as a result of exposure to radiation during the course of their duties. Despite my sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, there has been no change in the position.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, whatever my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) might say, there is strong support on the Conservative Benches for what many of us consider to be an honourable recognition of national responsibilities which is in no sense a repudiation of any manifesto commitment, and that even if it were necessary to adjust a manifesto commitment, circumstances can sometimes demand such a change?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the point of view that I have tried to express. The purpose of the Government's approach to the question is to take what steps are sensible and necessary to sustain the confidence of the people in Hong Kong and at the same time to reach conclusions acceptable to the British people. There will be ample opportunity to debate that matter.

Mr. David Winnick: May I press the Leader of the House on the need for a wider debate on the security services and for him as the Leader of the House to recognise that there is support on both sides of the House, certainly on the Labour Benches, for adequate parliamentary scrutinising of the security services which, to a large extent, remain a law unto themselves? With respect, Adjournment debates can be no substitute for a full-length debate. When shall we debate that matter, which has become all the more important as a result of the scandal,


the disinformation and the rest, that have now been revealed, on which we are to have a statement in a few minutes?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On that aspect, the hon. Gentleman will have to await the statement later this afternoon. The wider question has been the subject of debate in the House on a number of occasions over the years. It remains open to the Opposition to select one of their own days for debating that issue.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to consider giving the House an opportunity to debate sentencing policy? Is he aware that my constituent, Mrs. Noone, was brutally murdered last year and the man accused of her murder recently committed suicide, unfortunately before he could be brought to trial. Is he further aware that the man accused of the crime had previously been sentenced to life which, in practice, turned out to be 12 years? Does not this unhappy incident eloquently and strongly put the case that a life sentence should mean just that—life.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend understandably draws the attention of the House to the particular case with which he is rightly concerned. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is considering the preparation of a White Paper dealing with such matters and will be making a statement about it shortly.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am sure that the Leader of the House and the House will be aware that the Sealink ship, the St. Columba, was badly damaged by fire in the Irish sea yesterday. The emergency services undertook excellent work; of the 294 people on board, only one received minor injuries. Will he and the House join me in thanking the emergency services which included the coastguards, the fire service, the RAF at Valley, the social services department, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, trauma counsellors, the Samaritans, police and all the others who worked so hard to minimise the injuries? He will also be aware that Sealink is conducting its own inquiry to discover the cause of the fire. Will he assure us that, if necessary, the Department of Transport will also undertake an inquiry to find out whether regulations need to be tightened to prevent such incidents? Will he pass on that message, and the congratulations of the House on the work done by the emergency services, to the appropriate Secretary of State?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the whole House would wish me to join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our appreciation of the work carried out by the emergency services which he identified so comprehensively. I shall bring the other matter that he raised to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. There are virtually routine arrangements to ensure that such matters are considered as a matter of course.

Mr. John Bowls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend have another look at the possibility of a debate on the traffic and transport options for London, preferably this week but certainly before the end of this month? That will enable hon. Members to contribute to the consultative process and guide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport along the paths of

righteousness, which happen to be public transport paths not the publicly unwanted and environmentally damaging route of new highways.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is assiduous in drawing attention to the importance of this issue to his constituents. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is equally assiduous in his preparation of a balanced policy to address the issue.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the terms of reference of the Calcutt inquiry and in a form that allows us to move amendments so that we can ensure that the inquiry investigates why it was that when Colin Wallace drew the attention of child abuse in Kincora to the attention of his superior in 1974 no action was taken and six further years of child abuse ensued? That inquiry should also investigate the links between the late Airey Neave—in writing—with Colin Wallace, commissioning work from Colin Wallace to continue his disinformation activities. It should also investigate the information passed by Airey Neave to Peter Wright, in Peter Wright's capacity as an MI5 officer, about figures in public life. It should investigate the meeting held between Peter Wright and the late Airey Neave in the period immediately before the decision of Airey Neave to offer his campaign services to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It should investigate the meeting that took place in the Cumberland hotel a week before the murder of Airey Neave, when Airey Neave sought to recruit a former officer of MI6 to set up a small group to involve itself in the internal struggles of the Labour party.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the House will have any enthusiasm for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has sought, through an extended intervention, to make as many allegations as possible, and many of them against a late and respected Member of this House. The matters upon which he touched have been largely the subject of fully conducted investigations, including two full reports on the allegations in respect of the Kincora boys' home. There is no case to make any special arrangements in relation to that matter.

Mr. Cecil Franks: My question has no association with the question asked by the hon.Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the remarkable similarities and parallels between the Colin Wallace case and the Stalker affair? Does he accept that in the view of many, one reason why Mr. Stalker was removed from his inquiry was that he had blundered, or was about to blunder, into the circumstances concerning the Colin Wallace case?
In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that throughout the whole of Northern Ireland questions, Prime Minister's questions and business questions there were numerous requests for various debates on various matters related either to the Colin Wallace or to the Stalker affairs, will my right hon. and learned Friend give consideration to an early debate at a suitable and convenient time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously, I give consideration to any request made to me in the House. However, as I already said, all those matters have been the subject of full investigation in a whole range of different forums. There


will be further opportunities to put the points raised to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence later this afternoon.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must now move on. I will ensure that those hon. Members who have not been called during business questions are called early next Thursday.

Mr. Colin Wallace

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.
In a written answer on Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that records had been found that brought to light information of material significance to the case of Mr. Wallace. Because those records had been overlooked, some misleading information had unwittingly been given to Members of this House by Ministers.
As regards Mr. Wallace's employment in the Civil Service, the papers revealed no evidence that the decision to terminate it in 1975 was taken for reasons other than the offence with which he was charged—namely, disclosing classified information to the media without proper authority and at a time when he had already relinquished his post at Headquarters Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, in the light of the new information about his duties that has now come to light, the Government have decided to ask Mr. David Calcutt QC to examine the papers relating to Mr. Wallace's case so that he can consider whether its presentation to the Civil Service Appeal Board may have resulted in any injustices to Mr. Wallace, and if so whether compensation should be paid.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in a long written answer in Hansard on 30 January at column 110 set out the position that has now emerged over Mr. Wallace's case. He set out also the distinct issues as they emerge from a special re-examination of departmental records by senior officials. That re-examination showed, first, that papers previously overlooked showed that their earlier statements and letters needed to be corrected. The Government have therefore come to the House on this matter as early as possible and an inquiry is in hand within my Department into how the papers were overlooked.
Secondly, the re-examination showed that the newly found information raised a question mark over the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case to the Civil Service Appeal Board, and Mr. Calcutt will review those matters.
Thirdly, it showed that no information has been found to substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations of a cover-up relating to the Kincora boys' home in Belfast, or to call in question the thoroughness of the major inquiries already made into that affair, including those of Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes.
Fourthly, it showed that no information was found to call into question Mr. Wallace's conviction for manslaughter, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary advised the House on Tuesday.
Fifthly, it showed that none of it calls into question the conclusion stated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 May 1987, following a special report to her by the director-general of the Security Service, that there is no evidence to support suggestions of attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers or former Ministers.
My statement follows the detailed answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the published letters to right hon. and hon. Members to whom the previous incorrect answers were given. In


their actions, which relate to events some 15 years ago and to the Administrations of that time, the Government have sought to respond promptly and candidly to meet the responsibilities that fall to them as a result of the new information, and in particular to tackle the question of possible injustice to Mr. Wallace in his Civil Service appeal.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for coming to the House to make that statement, because a written answer, no matter how long, is a poor substitute for an opportunity to put questions on an issue of such importance—especially when so many right hon. and hon. Members have been besmirched by the dirty tricks campaign, and when the very democracy that the House represents has been subject to subversion.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that all Governments in the early 1970s were subject to such attacks? Why is it that it is only now, 11 years after the election of the present Government, that the information has come to light? Can the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit as to how it became available? Will he say who was responsible for granting permission to Colin Wallace to dispose of the documents? Are any of the people engaged in those activities still working in the MOD, and in positions of responsibility?
Does the Secretary of State not concede that the Kincora inquiries were hampered in the past by Mr. Wallace's refusal to give evidence unless guaranteed immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? Will he consider that part of his statement, now that Mr. Wallace's status has been changed?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the latest revelations show that the questions asked over the years by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were not the product of bizarre conspiracy theories but had substance in fact, and that what were once considered rumours are now accepted as facts? Does he agree also that the nature and scale of the allegations go far beyond the Ministry of Defence and that the inquiry announced today will be hampered by Mr. Calcutt's own admission that he can neither compel witnesses to testify nor afford protection for witnesses and their immunity from prosecution?
Does the Secretary of State not accept that an internal inquiry by the MOD, with no guarantee that its findings will be published or made available to the House, will fail to satisfy the House? Does he not recognise that the Attorney-General, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister herself are all involved, and that the House demands a wider and deeper inquiry than that offered today?
If the House is to clear its name, and if those who have been besmirched in the past are to keep their heads held high, the House has a responsibility to provide the means whereby the fullest and fairest inquiry can be held.

Mr. King: I would not have thought from the contribution of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that my statement included the information that we have made full investigations and that we were concerned as to whether the whole truth had been given. I have reported to the House—y hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—the outcome of those inquiries, which we took very seriously.
We are concerned that an injustice may have been done to Mr. Colin Wallace in respect of his handling by the Civil Service Appeal Board. We are anxious that justice should be done. I am concerned that at no time did the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that we volunteered the information. We sought to bring the information before the House and to ensure that justice is done. Although the hon. Gentleman has sought to widen the matter into a broader range of innuendo and allegation, I have absolute confidence—as will anyone who knows him—that Mr. Calcutt will seek to discharge his responsibilities in a thorough way, and certainly will not turn aside if he is not able to do it within the terms of reference that he has been given. We are certainly anxious to ensure that Mr. Calcutt's conclusions are published.

Mr. Ian Gow: If the Government are engaged in a cover-up, why did my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces give that detailed answer in the Official Report on Tuesday? Is it not wholly inconsistent with the allegations of a cover-up that that answer was given in the Official Report and this statement is being made today?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as that is precisely the point. We found that there were errors. We were not responding to any direct inquiry but to concern in the Ministry of Defence about matters that were being raised to see whether the information was correct. We had to refer to documents that are 15 years old which were found to be relevant.
A further extremely thorough investigation was made by a senior civil servant. As soon as the matter was brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, he gave immediate instructions that all documents were to be examined to see whether any further information that might have been overlooked had come to light.
No further information was found, but I should make it absolutely clear to the House that we shall take every step necessary to ensure that any information is brought to the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the firm way in which he has recognised that.

Sir David Steel: May I first acknowledge that the Secretary of State is concerned about possible injustice to Mr. Colin Wallace? But what about the injustice to the rest of us whose names have appeared on these blacklists? Is the Secretary of State aware that it is highly significant that in 1974 among the names on the blacklist were those of a former leader of my party, the then leader in the House of Lords, the late Lord Byers, myself as Chief Whip and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith)? The reason was that in 1974, between the two elections, the parliamentary Liberal party was pivotal to the parliamentary arithmetic. There could be no other reason.
Therefore, the Secretary of State must recognise that the only possible reason for the inclusion of our names was a direct attempt to interfere with the processes of parliamentary democracy. For that reason, he and the Prime Minister should recognise that it is no disrespect to them to say that it has gone beyond a matter just for Ministers; it is a matter for the House of Commons and a senior committee of Privy Councillors should be set up to inquire into it.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman is addressing issues about which I have no direct information—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: All I do know is that the matters were specifically investigated, first, by the right hon. Lord Callaghan, the previous Prime Minister, who made a statement to the House, and then by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who asked the director-general of the Security Service to investigate the matter. The director-general advised her, as she said in her statement in 1987, that there was no evidence of any truth in the allegations.
The right hon. Gentleman talks very glibly about blacklists. I have been on more blacklists in Northern Ireland than I care to count. The authors of some of those blacklists are proscribed organisations in any case. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence that somehow the Government service was involved in those blacklists, he should bring that evidence forward. He certainly has not been able to impress the director-general of the Security Service.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State explain to us how anybody can be satisfied that this dirty tricks department is not still in operation when, at the Dispatch Box over and over again, Ministers are—giving them the benefit of the doubt—to the best of their knowledge, denying that it ever existed? How can we, without a full public, sworn inquiry, be satisfied that this matter is not continuing?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will have seen Hansard and will know that my hon. Friend made it very clear—I think that it was made clear also by the right hon. Gentleman—that when this matter came to his attention the policy was changed. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman certainly from my own experience that there is no question of such a policy being pursued.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State fully understand that our criticism is not directed at the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defence, the Army or the earlier Labour Government? I cannot quite understand, then, why the Government should feel the need to be on the defensive.
Does the Secretary of State not accept that all those named ought to have their integrity confirmed by an investigation much wider than anything that has so far been proposed?
In defence of the late Airey Neave, is the Secretary of State really aware of the need to identify that element in what I call the governmental machine that guided the black propaganda and has guided it for a good many years and which may have been the same element that warned the late Airey Neave, in the very week of his murder, that he would not be permitted to carry out Conservative policies?

Mr. King: I find it very distressing to hear continual references to a former, much-respected colleague, a man who has now been dead for 10 years and who is not, sadly, able to speak up and answer some of the points and comments that are made. I know nothing about the points that have been made.
Now, for the second time, we have these allegations about lots of names. I do not know what lists they were on

—[Interruption.]—or what the authorship of the lists might be. I know very well, from my own experience, that there are organisations on both sides of the terrorist paramilitary extreme who are very good at producing lists and at black propaganda of that kind. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence, he should produce it. Quite clearly, it was not evidence that impressed the director-general of the Security Services or the previous Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, after seven years of detailed inquiries affecting my constituent Mr. Colin Wallace, I naturally warmly welcome the Government's initiative of the Calcutt inquiry? I look forward to hearing the outcome of that inquiry.
Will my right hon. Friend also reflect on two problems that have emerged in the past seven years? The first is the genuine difficulty of looking into security matters, particularly matters reflecting on a previous Administration, when conventions make it difficult for Ministers, let alone a Back Bencher, to establish facts.
Secondly, with regard to the inquiry into mishandling of documents, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred, will my right hon. Friend accept that when I came to see Ministers in his Department in 1986, one of my concerns was about the then problem of six missing files referred to by my constituent? Will he therefore please ensure that in the inquiry these matters, and not just the documents referred to by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, are looked at in the widest sense?

Mr. King: It is precisely because of the seriousness that we attach to this matter that both my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I have made the statements that we have—my hon. Friend in the answer that he gave on Tuesday and I here today. Exactly the same thoroughness as has marked this investigation will be carried over, under our very specific instructions, into the question of how this matter occurred and the handling of documents of this kind. I take note of what my hon. Friend says about the other files, and I will certainly look at that matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I refer the Secretary of State to the answer that was given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces a couple of days ago? The first paragraph states:
Ministers have not, of course, been told what advice was given to former Labour Ministers, nor what views they expressed, with the exception of … the then Attorney-General."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 40, c. 110.]
May I fill in that gap? What happened was this: I did not know that Mr. Colin Wallace existed. I was never informed that he would be given wide discretion to give documents of high classification—higher than senior civil servants in my own Department—and that he could use them for briefing purposes in all parts of the Province. I did not know that.
The first that I heard, in February 1975, was someone coming into Stormont house and saying that a document had been dropped in the door of a Times journalist, and it happened that the lady who looked after the house was the wife of a policeman. She had seen the classification and took the document to the police station. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the question?"] Well, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Merlyn Rees.

Mr. Rees: This document was found, and as a result the police took it in hand. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) asked a question in the House, and I recall the answer was that it was a matter for the police.
After that, the Attorney-General, and I am referring to the document, consulted us—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) will recall this—and said to me, as he was bound to, was this a matter for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? My view was no, that the document was not important enough, and no prosecution took place.
I say to the Secretary of State, what a position! Here was a high officer of state, an Attorney-General, considering whether to prosecute, but somebody else had given the man permission to use these documents without telling the Ministers of the day. That is the situation that we are investigating.
The question is—I will ask the Secretary of State, who has the great advantage of knowing Northern Ireland—who gave this authorisation?
The documents that the Prime Minister's office—I believe that it may have been the Minister of Defence—gave the Library, give evidence that was given by Peter Broderick, the chief information officer, at the time of the inquiry into Wallace, when he lost his job. I am astonished. How much more does one not know? It says that Mr. Wallace was
The advisor on Irish matters to the whole Headquarters"—
he might have been a bit of use in the Northern Ireland Office, perhaps—
In order to do his job he had constant and free access" —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a very important matter. The right hon. Gentleman was intimately involved at the time, but he must bear in mind the fact that other hon. Members wish to ask questions.

Mr. Rees: Is it correct—it needs to be looked at—what Mr. Broderick says:
I was instructed by my Generals there to use public relations and information policy techniques in direct support of their military objectives"?
In the same statement, it says, "We knew better than
Whitehall"
This was a small group not of intelligence officers but the information staff, with Army intelligence, which includes the replies that we have had, taking over the job of the elected Minister of the day. I believe that this ought to be investigated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Some Tory Members might not like this, but our names have been impugned. Some of them—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House appreciates what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He was involved in these matters, and it is right that we should hear him.

Mr. Rees: In the reply that came, the Prime Minister refers to the inquiry into the security services carried out by the noble Lord Callaghan and myself. The Prime Minister does not know what was in it, but that has not prevented her ever since from saying that everything was covered.
I make it abundantly clear that these dirty tricks in Northern Ireland were not covered in that inquiry. I am

the only one who knows; the Secretary of State cannot deny it. I simply say that this will not go away. There is no hiding place. The next Labour Government will look at it, and those who are hiding things for this Government had better remember that.

Mr. King: The House has listened with respect to the right hon. Gentleman's recounting of events when he was in office and his personal recollections of those matters. He will recall—because he referred to the Minister of State's written answer and the question of who authorised these activities—that one point that is uncertain at the present time is whether Mr. Wallace was ever given this specific job.
The written answer—the House will have read it—stated that the case for establishing the post, when it was considered that an additional information officer was needed in Northern Ireland, included the suggestion that this was the sort of work that he should do. There is no information or documentary evidence indicating that he may have been given the specification orally. There is no evidence whether it was actually authorised.
It is also stated in the written answer that, even before he was appointed to the post, whether or not he was briefed orally.
it would appear that he had already been undertaking unattributable briefing activities of this kind, which may have included disinformation".—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, column 111.]
The point that the right hon. Gentleman missed about the activities of Mr. Wallace was that the date on which the document was lodged was after Mr. Wallace had relinquished his post in Headquarters Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bob Cryer: One day after.

Mr. King: That is the fact in this matter, so in relation to the question about his authority, he had no authority after the post had been relinquished. I do not wish to say anything further about that, because those are matters which are very much in the area that Mr. Calcutt must now judge and which arise under the question of the handling of Mr. Wallace's employment and the question of his appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House will have understood why a dispensation should have been given to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was Secretary of State at the time. But I now ask hon. Members to put their questions succinctly so that as many as possible may be called.

Mr. Michael Mates: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, while the House always listens with respect to the sincerity with which the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) puts his view, and from his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the matters which he was relating to the House relate solely to Mr. Wallace's job in Headquarters Northern Ireland, which was to do with a campaign against terrorists and paramilitaries of both sides and was nothing whatever to do with the wild and so far unsubstantiated allegations of any dirty tricks against any Ministers of any Government?
In that my right hon. Friend has instituted an inquiry into the Wallace affair, vis-a-vis his job, there is no


evidence that there was subversion, and until anybody can produce proper evidence, there is no need to have an inquiry.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Anybody who has any memory of the circumstances will agree that while we can sit in judgment now in relation to certain activities that took place—and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) knows this better than anybody—it was a time of great danger and of great casualties, something like 10 times the current level of casualties. It was a time when there were certain practices; the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South made clear his view about them and I fully endorse what he said about the unacceptability of some of the practices that occurred at that time.
But I am dealing in my answer with one specific matter. We have found that an error has been made. We have come straight to the House to make the position clear and to make clear the action that we shall take. There have been attempts to reopen a whole lot of other issues that have been dealt with separately and specifically, in one case by two major inquiries, headed by a distinguished chief constable and a distinguished judge. I am dealing with matters that have come to light, and we wish to see that if an injustice has occurred, that injustice is remedied.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has said, because I took part in those discussions. This afternoon, the Secretary of State has made out the case for a full judicial inquiry. He says that he does not know what went on under the previous Administration and that he does not know anything about the smearing not only of Labour Members, but of Conservatives and Liberals. He has raised an objection at the name of Mr. Airey Neave being mentioned, but what about those of us who have also been mentioned and smeared? In the House, we have a right for the matter to be examined in an independent way.
I do not accept everything that Mr. Wallace has said. He is a gamekeeper turned poacher and he has played some dirty tricks in his time—I understand that. However, we now believe that there should be an inquiry, and I am sure that the House agrees. It is up to the Prime Minister, as head of security, to set up that inquiry and until such an inquiry is set up, we shall not let the matter rest.

Mr. King: Fifteen years on, we hear these allegations about the besmirching of reputations. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these matters have been investigated twice. There is no evidence of attempts to undermine Ministers or former Ministers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: I have come to the House to report on a matter on which there is evidence and in which we are clear that a mistake has been made. We are anxious to remedy that, and any ill consequences that may have flowed from it, at the earliest possible opportunity. People jumping up and down one after the other—and I could join the club —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the people jumping up and down alleging that they have evidence do have evidence, they should produce it so that the matter can be investigated properly.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we congratulate him on his candour on coming to the House? All Conservative Members are aware that these matters originated under another Administration and that present Ministers have no responsibility for what happened then. Can he confirm that the Government's statements during the past few days have been checked, confirmed and agreed by hon. Members who served as Ministers under the former Labour Administration?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is what we have sought to do. Having found that mistakes have been made, we came to tell the House frankly of them. I have dealt very directly with those issues, and with the action that we are taking to deal with the consequences and to try to ensure that it does not happen again.
In response to my hon. Friend's question, the statements were not shown to hon. Members who had served as Ministers, but the details of the contents of the statements were communicated to Lord Mason, Lord Carrington, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and Lord Whitelaw.

Mr. Tony Benn: I am sorry that the patience of the Secretary of State is exhausted, but these are important matters. Is he aware that the real anxiety being expressed is that the security services are not under political control? He has said that he has no knowledge of the earlier years, although many of the offences occurred in the 1970s, with two Administrations. By admitting that she was misinformed, the Prime Minister has also said that she was unable, as Prime Minister, to get the truth out of the services for which she is supposed to be responsible to Parliament.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's recent legislation now makes it a crime for Mr. Colin Wallace to give the evidence that would prove that the smearing had occurred? Is he also aware that the vast sum spent in trying to prevent the publication of "Spycatcher" did not show a yearning that the truth should reach the British public?
Is not all this combined to very strong evidence in support of a parliamentary inquiry at which Mr. Wallace, and perhaps Peter Wright and others who are certain that destabilisation occurred, could be rigorously cross-examined by hon. Members from across the House? Will the Secretary of State take seriously our anxiety that a breach of democratic responsibility has been committed by those who purport to be the defenders of our democratic rights?

Mr. King: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I am advised that, as usual, he has got it mainly wrong. I am told that the idea that Mr. Wallace makes himself liable to prosecution does not apply, as he has never been a member of the security services. It has been made very clear,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who from?"]—as I think the House knows, that this is an area where endless allegations are made. There is an amazing unwillingness to produce evidence that can be tested and checked.
If Mr. Wallace wants to make charges or has evidence on matters arising in Northern Ireland, he should bring it to the RUC. If he has any worries about his position in doing so in relation to classified information, it has been


made clear time without number that he should address himself to the director of army security, who will advise him about the position.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I speak as one who served with the Army in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that 300 terrorist murders per annum were taking place at the time, the Army was absolutely justified in using disinformation? Does he further agree that the Army would have been negligent had it not used disinformation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is it not a fact that had the Army not used these techniques to undermine terrorism, many more British soldiers and civilians would be dead today?

Mr. King: I understand entirely why my hon. Friend comments as he does. There were practices of using disinformation to malign organisations and individuals. When my hon. Friend says that the Army is entitled to use disinformation, that is certainly true. Disinformation may be necessary to protect lives and security.
If hon. Members do not understand what I mean, I will give the House the most obvious and simple example. I arrived back this morning from Washington. I travelled under a false name. I make no apology for that. It was deliberate disinformation; it was done in the interests of security. The position is that disinformation may be needed to protect lives in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for that.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Should we not remind ourselves that the term "misinformation" is a euphemism for telling lies, that Mr. Colin Wallace was employed by a Government to tell lies, and that indeed he was a very squalid part of a very squalid operation in the North of Ireland at that time? There will be no tears shed in the North of Ireland about the manner of his dismissal.
The real issue at stake involves the characters and the reputations of those who were besmirched by people like Colin Wallace, those who may have lost their lives as a result of the activities of a dirty tricks department, those young lives that were blighted because of organised buggery which may have been part of the same campaign and, above all, the integrity and the highest practices which one expects from a system of law and security which simply did not seem to operate there at the time.
Will the Secretary of State agree to a full inquiry into those real matters, or will he consign this as another can of worms upon which the lid must be kept, instead of laying bare the facts which nobody doubts?

Mr. King: If I have heard him right, the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking for what would arguably be the third, fourth or fifth inquiry into Kincora. What presumption is there that that would establish anything different?
I have come to make a statement about certain information that was overlooked in the Ministry of Defence. I made it clear in that statement that the re-examination indicated that no information had been found to substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations of a cover-up relating to the Kincora boys' home in Belfast. If new, fresh evidence emerges from another quarter, that evidence should be made available. If Mr. Wallace wishes to present any evidence, as he has been asked to do countless times, he should do so. What is absolutely

unacceptable is for people to continue to call for inquiries, and to continue to indulge in innuendo, without producing any evidence on which the charges can be based.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend clarify two points? If I understand his statement and the deduction that has followed it, it is perfectly appropriate and right to use disinformation to protect ordinary military operations; otherwise we would be running one after another into an ambush. Did I also understand my right hon. Friend to say that no evidence has come to light of attempts by agents of the Government to besmirch particular individuals in the way that has been suggested? If that is so, it too is important.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making his first point, about disinformation. That is precisely the point. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in his statement,
It has not since the mid-1970s been the policy to disseminate disinformation in Northern Ireland in ways designed to denigrate individuals and/or organisations or for propaganda purposes."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 111.]
I did not say that it has not been the practice to use disinformation where it is necessary to protect lives, and for sound and absolutely honourable security reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has understood that point very well.
As for my right hon. Friend's second question, I sought to make a point about the allegations that the security services were somehow involved in attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers in previous Administrations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a statement about that, and the director-general was asked to conduct a thorough investigation. He found no evidence of any truth in the allegations.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the inquiry deal with the question whether Colin Wallace had a written job description classified "secret", relating to his undercover operations? If it were possible to establish the existence of a job description in one form or another, would the inquiry be able to examine the nature of the activities involved?
Will the inquiry also be able to establish the source of a document dated 1972—a CIA registration card—and that of a forged bank statement in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), dated 1973? I might add that there was not a Labour Government in either of those years. Will it establish the source of a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley arid Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) dated 3 October 1971, from some American organisation of IRA sympathisers, thanking my right hon. Friend for money that he had never sent/again, a forgery?
Will the inquiry deal with a document dated autumn 1971—again, a Labour Government were not in power then—entitled "Economics: Master or Servant of Mankind"? The document was allegedly written—although we know that it is a forgery—by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Those forgeries were produced between 1971 and 1973, and we want to know who produced them.

Mr. Mates: You tell us.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the inquiry deal with a document entitled "Vote Labour", which advocates assassination, but which is a forgery and has nothing whatever to do with Labour? We want to know the source of that document. Will it deal with a speech that was allegedly made, but was never made, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East—to a Labour party conference that never took place? Who wrote this material? We want to know, and if the inquiry does not deal with these matters, it will be a whitewash.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knew the answer to his question before he rose to his feet. He has indulged once again his interest in parading all kinds of rumour and innuendo. [HON. MEMBERS: "You asked for evidence."] The House has no idea of the evidence of authorship of those documents.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's first question, about the job description. Let me make it clear—this is what I have come to speak to the House about—that I would expect it to be for Mr. Calcutt to make the decision, within his terms of reference. I have absolute confidence in Mr. Calcutt: I am confident that he will seek to discharge his terms of reference to the full, and will take into account any relevant matter. The other matters certainly do not fall within his inquiry.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend said that he had no direct information about some of the wider constitutional security matters in and around the Wallace affair. He is aware that some of us feel that that is the fundamental flaw in his statement, and in the terms of the inquiry that he has announced.
This is not merely a narrow Ministry of Defence matter relating exclusively to a Civil Service appeal to do with Mr. Colin Wallace, important though that is. There are new issues here. In the past few days the Prime Minister has announced to the House that she was misled by Government servants, and even this afternoon we have heard disclosures of apparently wrongful and unauthorised use of disinformation by members of the Security Service, without satisfactory checks and balance and ministerial authorisation.
I think that my right hon. Friend should take account of the feeling in the House that there are wider and deeper issues that need to be identified by a wider and deeper inquiry. The matter will not go away as quickly as some people hope, and I think that, sooner or later, a fuller inquiry will have to be carried out by the head of the security services.

Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about open government and less secrecy. I am sorry that he was not able to acknowledge the fact that, having discovered that an error had been made, we have come straight to the House. I thought that he would feel able to applaud that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clear up one aspect of what I said. Of course I am not privy to and familiar with the details of what the director-general of the Security Service may have found out about activities that took place during a Labour Administration, to which I do not have access. [Interruption.] I am talking now about attempts to subvert

a Labour Government and the allegations that were made about the discrediting and the actions of Ministers at that time. I obviously do not have access to that information.
What I do have access to are the findings of the director-general of the Security Service, with which I have no reason to disagree. I share the view of the Prime Minister. She made it clear in her statement that she accepted fully the assurance and advice that the director-general had given her, and I am sure that the House will do the same.

Mr. Peter Archer: But has the right hon. Gentleman not yet grasped that the misleading answers to which the Government have now admitted are like the 13th stroke of the clock, casting doubt not only on themselves but on all the other answers that have been given about the matter over the years? If it is only now that someone has troubled to search the files, how can it be known what other documents are lying there undetected, and how can the public have confidence in anything less than a full public inquiry?

Mr. King: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may choose to see this as the 13th stroke of the clock, but I have no evidence of that whatever. I have made matters absolutely clear in my statement. On the specific question of the job specification, we have found that—to put it simply—there are concerns that the appeal may not have proceeded on the fullest evidence available to it. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I have made it clear that, as a result of previous information that was incorrect, misleading answers may have been given. That is precisely why we advised the Prime Minister, who has written letters on the same matter on our advice, that it was necessary to correct the incorrect advice that she had been given by myself and by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. We sought to make that absolutely clear. But in my statement I made it clear also that people who imagine that there are all sorts of other implications in this error of overlooking certain documents are wrong. That simply does not stand up.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should at least take into account the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) was able to pursue his inquiries, which gave rise to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces; the fact that my right hon. Friend came here to make this statement and to answer questions on it; and the fact that we have a system under which the accountability of the Government to this House is avidly pursued, even at prime ministerial level? No other Government or, indeed, democracy in the western world would allow this degree of public examination of its policies. Perhaps Opposition Members would like nothing better than an expose of the security system that would undermine fatally the capacity of this democracy to fight terrorism.

Mr. King: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the very eloquent and perfectly fair way in which he has stated precisely the issue that is before us. It is quite ironic that, when I come to the House to apologise for an error and to set out the actions that we intend to take to put it right, I should be told by some hon. Members that that will not do. It is a very odd approach indeed.

Mr. John Hume: The Secretary of State admitted a few moments ago that, before the mid-1970s, there was a policy of denigrating individuals by disinformation. Can he tell the House on what information he bases that statement? Who were the people who were denigrated, and on the basis of what disinformation were they denigrated?

Mr. King: In my statement I referred to the answer that had been given by my hon. Friend. I have made it clear that his statement and his answers were based on a further examination of files—an examination which identified the case being made for the establishment of a new post whose job specification included these requirements. The hon. Gentleman has seen the answers. Further evidence on what form that took, and whether it was ever communicated to Mr. Wallace, is not clear. As for what has now happened to Mr. Wallace's position, I have no doubt that Mr. Calcutt will wish to pursue such matters.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this House and outside he enjoys widespread confidence for the integrity and thoroughness with which this inquiry will he conducted? Will he be reluctant to concede to arguments that the scope of the inquiry should be increased? Perhaps he would care to say what credibility we ought to attach to the allegations of dirty tricks and to the besmirching of Members of this House by a man who was convicted of and imprisoned for the particularly horrific manslaughter of the antique dealer Mr. Jonathan Lewis. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves not about the integrity of the Prime Minister and other Ministers reporting to this House but about the system by which this Walter Mitty character had such access to highly classified documents.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has stated very clearly another aspect of this very difficult saga. With hindsight, there is no doubt that one is entitled to ask how some of these things arose and how some of the people concerned could be involved in such matters. It is easy, 15 years after the event, for people who were not involved to judge. We certainly have a duty to take whatever steps we can to ensure that if, in the areas that I have described, errors were made and disinformation was overlooked, the situation is rectified. No matter what view we hold, Mr. Wallace is entitled to fair treatment. If we think that there is a risk that he did not receive justice, we have a duty to have the matter investigated.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What circumstances induced Sir Michael Quinlan, as far back as last June, to advise the Secretary of State that he should have an inquiry into Colin Wallace?

Mr. King: The hon. Member talks about an inquiry into the information and into any documents that were available, which were the source—

Mr. Dalyell: He is the Secretary of State's Permanent Secretary.

Mr. King: I am actually aware who my Permanent Secretary is.
In that situation, there was concern over whether, in respect of a number of issues that had been raised, the fullest investigation had been made. Authority was

therefore given, and the matter was raised with Ministers—immediately confirmed—to investigate whether any files were missing.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, when they first heard of the allegations made by Colin Wallace, were inclined to dismiss him as a Walter Mitty figure? Will my right hon. Friend accept that what has changed the situation this week is the confirmation that there were in the Ministry of Defence documents concerning an operation—perhaps not cleared, perhaps a renegade operation—code—named "Clockwork Orange"? Is not that the single item has justified some of the anxiety that has been expressed in the past?
Are there not precedents, in the shape of similar inquiries being passed straight to the Security Commission? Will my hon. Friend consider very carefully whether this is not an ideal matter for the Security Commission to look into? After all, if the Government have nothing to hide, surely it would be to their advantage to take that step.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows that what he referred to, particularly in relation to "Clockwork Orange" was referred to in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. While descriptions have been given of what the project might have been like, and the suggestion made that Mr. Wallace was involved in the project, the documents make it absolutely clear that the project was not actually cleared. I think that this is where some ideas start off—whatever Mr. Wallace may have been involved in, and the ideas that he had—but we are dealing with the facts, with what actually happened.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Secretary of State—first of all, as people read Hansard—realise that it demeans his office to pretend that the disinformation about which we are speaking is that which requires him to travel under an assumed name? We are speaking of much more serious matters.
Secondly, how can the right hon. Gentleman come to this House and repeat such phrases as "documents were overlooked" and "inadvertently misleading the House" and then proceed, in a stout defence, to resist any possible inquiry, on the grounds that there is no such information? Is he aware that his incapacity to understand the serious nature of the breach of rules—or whatever it was—by the Security Service is exactly the kind of defence used by the security services in eastern Europe? He ought to be ashamed of himself for taking that sort of position.

Mr. King: I have come here to explain certain events that occurred at a time when there were in office a Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a supporter. I do not make any point about this, because it affected different Administrations at that time. I make no apology for coming to the House in these circumstances. It is disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to say that I should be ashamed of myself when I have come to explain that mistakes were made, and to state what action we are taking to correct them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: While applauding the Secretary of State for his courage in making what would obviously be a very embarrassing statement for any Minister to make, may I ask whether he accepts that he has


a very special responsibility to those whose reputation may have been gravely undermined by the activities of Mr. Wallace and his colleagues?
Can my right hon. Friend clarify in what circumstances he might think there was a case for a further inquiry? Would it, for example, be if we had evidence that all the documents referred to by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and other frauds and forgeries alleged by Mr. Wallace to be the product of his particular group had been supplied to the Government in 1984?

Mr. King: I am obviously grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning. On this matter, we have sought to be quite frank with the House. Various allegations have been made. If there is evidence to substantiate the allegations about a whole range of matters, it should be brought forward. People might then like to explain why it had taken 15 years to do so.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I address a number of specific points to the Secretary of State? He has referred on two or three occasions to mistakes having been made in the past, and he has twice repeated that errors have been made in overlooking information. The only significance of the new information is that it suggests that Mr. Wallace may well have been telling the truth in this particular.
The argument that we are seeking to put to the Secretary of State and to get him to accept is that, if there is evidence that Mr. Wallace has been telling the truth in this particular, there may well be validity in his general arguments and points. Therefore, for that reason if no other, there is a need for a far wider-scale inquiry than is being proposed at present. The Secretary of State must know that the piddling little inquiry that he has set up is to determine whether Mr. Wallace was fairly or unfairly dismissed in the light of the new evidence—but that just will not do.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman totally overlooks the fact that that was one of the specific matters raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) when he called for an inquiry. In fact, the hon. Gentleman was actually calling for the fifth or sixth inquiry. In answer to the idea that these matters have not been inquired into when they have been a matter of specific inquiry, there is absolutely no evidence that a further inquiry would produce anything different from the previous inquiries. It is simply no good for people to make and to keep on making allegations, which is certainly true of Mr. Wallace over the Kincora matter, and yet refuse to bring forward evidence on it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep resentment among my hon. Friends at the attempt by some Opposition Members to smear members of this Administration about things that happened long before any Minister in this Government came to power? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) were to put before members of the Government the documents of which only he and Lord Callaghan have direct knowledge, they would be looked into, and that it is no use the right hon. Gentleman accusing this

Government of not knowing what they are talking about, when the information has not been put to the Government?

Mr. King: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says. If there is evidence, it should be brought forward and put before the appropriate authorities. I find it difficult, standing here, to understand why that has not been done.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Under the Government's own definition of "subversion", which includes undermining parliamentary democracy, were these dirty tricks that were aimed at politicians "subversion"? Will the Secretary of State answer that point? Is it not becoming increasingly clear that there was political meddling on behalf of a small faction in the security services to achieve a Right-wing putsch in this country, and that it was successful? When are we going to get the truth about that?

Mr. King: I am making a statement about somebody who was a member of the information service in the headquarters in Northen Ireland, and attached to the Army. That is the matter with which I am dealing. Some of the allegations that have been made previously have been fully investigated, and separate statements have been made to the House. Some of the allegations have been subject to quite separate and very full inquiries. I have nothing to add on those. I have made a specific statement about the action that we are taking in respect of one specific matter.

Mr. Edward Leigh: If it is established beyond peradventure that there is no shred of evidence to suggest that there was a campaign to discredit Ministers at the time, is not the only logical conclusion that those who call for further inquiries are, either consciously or unconsciously, seeking to attack the credibility of our security services, which at the time were facing a campaign that caused the death of 300 people, or that they have no confidence in Ministers of the time?

Mr. King: Listening to some of the contributions that have been made, I well understand why my hon. Friend makes that comment. I am under no illusions that one or two contributors to this debate are very keen to undermine —[Interruption.]—the confidence in the security services, and they have made that perfectly clear—

Ms. Clare Short: Name them.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir David Steel) and other right hon. and hon. Members were seeking to aid and abet the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland by raising the questions that they have?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not intend that.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Dr. John Cunningham: May I invite the Secretary of State, on reflection, to withdraw the remark that he has just made, which I am sure, on reconsideration, he would want to withdraw? It cannot possibly be his view that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have served, as he did, with great distinction in Northern Ireland, could


possibly justify or deserve the comments that he has just made, and on behalf of my other hon. Friends, I certainly repudiate them.

Mr. King: I made it absolutely clear—if the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I said "one or two"—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Name them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the Secretary of State that even that is a reflection upon the honour of hon. Members?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. King: If you take that view, Mr. Speaker, I most certainly withdraw.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I also speak as an hon. Member who has served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are sometimes in danger of discussing these matters while losing sight of the general context? Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement proves to the House that the Government's only object is to ensure that fairness and accuracy are put on the record, whichever Administration may have been in power at the relevant time?

Mr. King: That has been my purpose today. If errors of this kind are discovered, it is important that one comes immediately to the House to make that clear. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces set out the full background to these matters. My right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who were given incorrect information have received full letters setting out what we believe to be the correct position.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Secretary of State now accept that he has demonstrated clearly that the Prime Minister should have been making the statement this afternoon? Having misled the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and having refused to make a statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind what he is saying. What the Prime Minister has admitted is that she inadvertently misled the House.

Mr. Madden: Does not the Secretary of State very much regret that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to listen to one second of the statement that he has made this afternoon? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister that he has been unable to persuade the House of the matters that we are debating, and that his very unconvincing performance of bluff and bluster has not prevented him from sinking in the House this afternoon?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to come to the House on Monday to announce that there is to be a full independent inquiry into all the matters that we have been discussing, and that there will be a parliamentary investigation, either through a special Select Committee or through the Select Committee on Privileges, to examine the activities of Mr. Wallace in relation to Members of Parliament and former Members of Parliament?

Mr. King: I think it is absolutely ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Prime Minister should come to the House to apologise for an error made in documents

being overlooked in the Ministry of Defence. I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces take full responsibility for that. I have come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity—I landed from Washington at half-past 8 this morning—to make a full statement to the House. The hon. Gentleman's comments are purely trivial.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that we have a heavy day in front of us. May I ask hon. Members to reflect on their questions and to ask for information that has not already been given?

Mr. Kenneth Hind: We on this side of the House congratulate my right hon. Friend on his frankness. Will he confirm that, in his investigations in his Department, there has been no proved link between what he has revealed to us today and the allegations that have been made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr Campbell-Savours) about the so-called "dirty tricks department"? Will he also confirm that the defence of Mr. Wallace, at his trial where he was convicted for murder by a jury—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]—which was upheld by the Court of Appeal—

Mr. Cryer: Disinformation.

Mr. Hind: —depended on the fact that he had been framed by the secret services, which must cast some doubt on some of the things that he has been saying?

Mr. King: I confirm, as I made clear in my statement, that the further information which has come to light has no relevance whatever to the other matters that he raised.

Mr. Chris Mullin: In addition to the documents mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), may I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State a 100-page pamphlet, illustrated with about 100 photographs. which seeks to denigrate in a scurrilous way his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), which was circulated at the 1974 general election? Any inquiry that fails to address that and the documents already mentioned will not be credible.

Mr. King: As I have told other hon. Members, the question is whether the hon. Member has any evidence of the authorship of that document. I could point him to documents circulated in Northern Ireland that denigrated me in a particularly vicious and nasty way. I know that it is no good complaining about it, but I have a good idea of the origin and authorship of those documents.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Some years ago, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service sent the Prime Minister several documents, some from Mr. Colin Wallace, some from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants as it then was, and one from Mr. Peter Broderick, the head of the information service for the Army in Northern Ireland. They showed clearly that there was a dirty tricks campaign in Northern Ireland. How comes it that, in the years since, the enemy from within has been allowed to lie, lie and lie again about what has been happening, but no Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to say, "That is not true; we now have the truth; we have seen the documents"?

Mr. King: As I am the Minister who has come to say that documents have been found, the hon. Gentleman should give me the credit for it.

Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that, however fascinating the history of this episode, there is currently great cause for anxiety about the activities of the security services? The Secretary of State, as Minister directly responsible for military intelligence, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), sitting on his right, who was formerly responsible for the secret services, and the Prime Minister, who is now responsible for all the security services, will be aware that the way in which things work is that they are informed on a "need to know" basis. Is he satisfied today that he knows all that he needs to know to ensure that such dirty tricks campaigns are neither happening now, with Colin Wallaces in new guises, nor will happen in the run-up to the next general election?

Mr. King: My statement and the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as well as what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, have made it clear that, whatever practices there may have been in the 1970s, they were clearly and firmly stopped. I have no evidence whatever that such a policy continued to be pursued, either in the right hon. Member's time of office or in mine.

Mr. William Ross: Surely it is inconceivable to any reasonable man or woman that the people with and for whom Mr. Wallace worked embarked on the operation without thinking it through and forming an objective? If I recall correctly, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that, according to some documents, it was an objective of the generals. That is to say, they had an objective beyond and different from that of the elected Government of the day.
In Northern Ireland, we should like to know precisely what the political and constitutional objective was. We should also like to know why the information, misinformation or disinformation—call it what one will —has been referred to only in relation to Great Britain politicians.
All of us who work in politics in Northern Ireland know that, during the 1970s, the whole place was alive with rumours about leading politicians, especially those from the Unionist community. Many of those rumours were designed to injure the standing of those politicians, not only in their own communities but throughout the Northern Ireland community. Frankly, many of them were dredged out of a cesspool.
This is a serious matter. The Government and Conservative Members do not seem to understand that the present Government continue to be the victim of what happened in the 1970s. It was not an error but a deliberate policy perpetrated against the Government, and which the Government repeated to the House. That makes it a constitutional issue of the greatest importance. It is wrong for any Government to say that they will not carry out the fullest inquiry to discover what happened, if only for their own protection and that of the Prime Minister and of subsequent Cabinets.

Mr. King: It is clear, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made it clear, that any policy of disinformation designed to denigrate

individuals or organisations in the early 1970s was stopped. If there is any further evidence of such a policy, it should be brought forward. I have nothing to add to the statement that I have already made.

Mr. Cryer: But on the evidence from the Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall)—Colin Wallace's Member of Parliament—documentation has been requested from the Department since 1986. Why has it taken four years to discover those documents? When was the search instituted and how many days ago was that handful of documents discovered? Will there be a search for the other five and a half or more files of documents that it is alleged have gone missing?
Is not the Secretary of State worried that the matter goes to the extent of treason? He seems to be prepared to defend the security services whatever dirty tricks they get up to, even to the point—this should be clearly noted by the House—of denigrating hon. Members for exercising their democratic options in the House. The aim of the security services was an attack on our very system of democracy. Would not an inquiry by the Select Committee on Home Affairs be a way of ensuring full democratic accountability? As the Committee is made up entirely of hon. Members, what is wrong with that?

Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Member was listening to the answers that I gave earlier, including the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). I have nothing to add to the statement that I have made about the approach that we should now adopt to these matters.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the narrow field in which the Secretary of State has responded, will he answer the questions asked earlier? Are any of those involved in disinformation or giving advice to Ministers still in responsible positions as advisers to the Government or in public service?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the matter could go beyond the Ministry of Defence into other areas, even the Northern Ireland Office? Does he accept that it will take a wider inquiry to deal with the issues, the innuendo that still surrounds the people involved in the Kincora inquiry and the allegations that Colin Wallace was the third member present at the murder of Tommy Herren?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman chose to widen his questions into precisely the areas where I said that no evidence arising out of the matters that I have reported to the House has been substantiated or gives fresh ground for anxiety. On the question of who authorised Mr. Wallace, it is clear that he was already undertaking unattributable briefing activities, which may have included misinformation, before he was authorised to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State said that documents were overlooked. On what day were they found? What was the date? He must have it on file somewhere.

Mr. King: They were found early last year. The first document was found then. On the instruction of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, a formal investigation was held to find out whether other information was available to guide us.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: If the Secretary of State is right to tell the House that these matters have come as a surprise to Ministers and senior civil servants, why, in the early years of this Administraion, while Colin Wallace was in prison, was a senior-level meeting held inside the Ministry of Defence at which Ministers and senior civil servants, including Clive Ponting, were present?
The discussion was about the danger to the reputation of the Government if Colin Wallace came out of prison and continued to make the statements that he had made before he went in? How can we be told that the matter is a shock and a surprise? All the documents that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has shown to the House were delivered to the Prime Minister in November 1984. Why was nothing done about that?
Given that the Government have now admitted the status of Colin Wallace, can we be told why it was that, when Colin Wallace warned his superiors about child abuse in Kincora in 1974, no action was taken and that child abuse continued until the issue was made public by the press?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman tries to widen the issue beyond the point that I made. I shall seek to give the exact date when the first document came to light, on the basis of which an instruction was given for a full examination. A considerable number of documents had to be examined to make sure that there were no other inaccuracies in what is a very serious issue indeed.
It may not be clear that the first document was not the job specification; it was not any evidence that anything was given to Colin Wallace. It was as listed. If the hon. Gentleman has read the Minister of State's written answer, he will know that it was a background paper seeking to justify expenditure on a further information officer in Headquarters Northern Ireland.
That was not conclusive proof, and that is why it was necessary to find out whether Colin Wallace was given the job specification and to seek to come to the House with proper information. We have come to the House not with a complete story but with something which is of sufficient concern and which we believe means that, in justice to Mr. Colin Wallace, the matter should be investigated and reviewed by Mr. Calcutt.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Calcutt will have the powers to obtain and to make use of the job specification? Will he also confirm that section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 makes it clear that not only those in the security services but those who work in support of them can obtain immunity and the like? Will he guarantee that immunity from prosecution will be provided under that Act?
How can the Secretary of State give a guarantee about "Clockwork Orange", which was not extended beyond Northern Ireland, when he freely admits that he has not seen the relevant papers?
Lastly, does the Secretary of State agree that to appear on a blacklist drawn up by terrorists is one thing, but to appear on a blacklist drawn up by servants of the Crown, whose responsibility was to uphold our freedom, is a completely different matter? As those people are senior Members of the House, surely it is reasonable that, as requested by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have the fullest public inquiry so as to satisfy the House, to clear the names of those besmirched and to restore public confidence outside the House in the workings of our affairs?

Mr. King: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes—I have forgotten the question but I know the answer.

Mr. O'Neill: The job specification.

Mr. King: Although the job specification is a classified document, Mr. Calcutt will have access to it and he will be able to show it to Mr. Wallace. I have also been advised that Mr. Wallace will be authorised to give the authorities the facts in the other matters that have been raised, so no offence arises under the Official Secrets Act. In that respect, there is no change from the old Act, which only made unauthorised publication an offence.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on the private Members' motions—

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: After this length of time, and given the pressure on time, I hope that hon. Members are raising points of order with which I can deal.

Mr. Madden: My point of order is precisely a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that an application for the matter to be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges has been made to you. Can you say when you intend to make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot, because I am considering the matter and I have had to write to the hon. Member concerned asking for further information.

Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is great pressure on time. Other hon. Members are bound to lose time as a result of points of order now.

Mr. Hind: When I asked a question of the Secretary of State, I wrongly said that Mr. Wallace was convicted of murder. In fact, he was convicted of manslaughter, and I wish to apologise to him and to the House.

Ten-minute Rule Bills (Budget Day)

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For reasons that are obvious to the House, it has been necessary to take some time on that important statement. The Leader of the House will, if you now give him an opportunity, put before the House five motions. As I understand it, under an order passed by the House on Friday, you have to put the Question on those motions and any amendments to them at 7 o'clock, despite the fact that it is now 5.25. If I am not mistaken—you will be able to confirm this—you have no discretion about whether you put the Question. You are obliged to do so and you must bring the debate to a conclusion with a vote. The motions before us all have profound effects on the rights of Members. They curtail those rights in a series of different ways. The Leader of the House will have a case to make as will the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a speech.

Mr. Beith: I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Leader of the House is taking note, that, however well you discharge your duties, if you comply with the order passed on Friday, it will not be possible for all Back-Bench Members, who have a legitimate interest in the matter, to take part in the debate, yet it is their rights that are being taken away. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to tell the Leader of the House that you have no discretion about how long the debate can last, and that the matter should not be brought to a vote after so short a time.

Mr. Speaker: I confirm that I have no discretion in the matter. I have to put the motions at 7 o'clock. This is a joint debate. The five motions will be taken together, and I confirm that at the end I shall put only those motions that are moved.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. I am on my feet.
I have selected the first amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Benn: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for five motions to be moved together without the consent of the House? My understanding is that motions of a differing character may be taken together if the House wishes it. Given the point that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made about the pressure of time, if only the first motion is moved we shall at least be able to debate that for an hour and a half, but if all five motions are put together, all five have to be put to the vote.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is an agreement —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—that there should be a general debate on the five motions together.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: There was a business motion last week which set that out. I understand that that arrangement had general agreement.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that you have no discretion in what you have to do at 7 o'clock, but we have discretion about whether

to assent to the grouping of motions, all of which are quite separate in character. The House often discusses such motions together if it wishes to do so, but in this case the only way of protecting the time of the House on at least four of the motions is to object to them being taken together. Therefore, if it is in order, I object to the five motions being taken together—as, I gather, do other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Let me make it perfectly plain. When the Leader of the House rises, he will move the first of the motions, but I understand that there is an agreement that all the motions should be debated together. I am sure that there is a great deal of interest in these matters, but to date no one has indicated their interest in taking part in the debate, although, of course, no one has to do that in writing.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it will be helpful to you, because you are in a difficult position, which is not of your making. Will you confirm that, if the Leader of the House were not to press some of the motions today, there need be no vote on those? You, Sir, have no discretion, but the Leader of the House does, and he should take account of what hon. Members are saying.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.
That is extremely helpful of the hon. Gentleman, because that is exactly what I mentioned. I can put to the vote only those motions which are actually moved. Until we hear the Leader of the House, I do not know which ones he intends to move.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just told the House that no Member indicated in writing a desire to participate in the debate. I most certainly did.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I confirm that the hon. Lady did.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Friday there was a business motion. It quite clearly allows the votes to be taken at the end. It does not state that the Leader of the House has to move the motions collectively. If he so chooses, and if the House agrees, the Leader of the House can move the first one, we can debate it and deal with it. The business motion does not compel the House as a whole to deal with all five motions collectively and dispose of them. The Leader of the House can help in this matter.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): rose—

Mr. Speaker: It appears that the Leader of the House is about to help in this matter.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been trying to see how best to deal with this, because these are important matters for the House as a whole and the time for debating them has been curtailed. However, I would not wish to set aside time


to no purpose. As I understand it, we could debate all five motions even if I moved only one. If I have that option —it seems to be the convenient one—I should move motion No. 4, which relates to ten-minute Bills on Budget day, which has the widest assent. Of course, hon. Members may oppose it, but it is the one most likely to be generally supported.
The debate could range over all five motions and we could return on a subsequent occasion to votes on the other matters. That would be the most convenient way of proceeding, because we want to use the time usefully, but not in such a fashion as to deprive hon. Members of the opportunity of considering the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The House has heard what the Leader of the House has said. Let us proceed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move,
That no notice may be given under Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) for a day on which Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared his intention of opening his Budget; but

(i) notices proposed to be given for such day, and
(ii) notices so given for a day in respect of which such intention is subsequently declared,
shall be treated as having been given for the first Monday on which the House shall sit after the Budget is opened, and may be proceeded with on that day as though it were a Tuesday or a Wednesday.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
I am grateful to the House for giving me time, by raising points of order, to reflect on the matter sufficiently to reach a conclusion which makes reasonable sense.
As the House knows, the five motions arise from the second and third reports of the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session. Three of them relate to private Members' time and two to ten-minute Bills. I am moving the first of the two relating to ten-minute Bills. They provide a sensible package to consider together.
Motion Nos. 1 to 3 relate to private Members' time. The overall purpose of the three motions is to ensure that, as far as possible, the time available for private Members' business is fully used for that purpose, not interrupted or disrupted by the unintended or unorthodox use of procedures relating to other issues. They are also intended to avoid any unusual use of procedure which would affect the precedence of private Members' Bills as determined in the ballot and Standing Orders, or provide additional time for a particular Bill beyond that allotted to private Members.
When it made these recommendations, the Procedure Committee was not concerned with the progress or fate of individual Bills, and nor am I. Our common purpose is simply to protect private Members' time—no more, no less —and that is what the motions set out to do.
Of the two motions relating to ten-minute Bills, motion No. 4, which I have moved, is intended to ensure that the opening of the Budget is not delayed by a ten-minute Bill. The other motion on that topic—motion No. 5—is tabled to overcome problems which have arisen under the existing queueing system by replacing it with a ballot system.
Of the three motions on private Members' time, motion No. 3 would mean that, on a Friday on which private Members' business had precedence, any petition remaining to be presented at 10 am would stand over until 2.30

pm. In practice, in the ordinary way, the presentation of petitions on such days is normally completed well before 10 am. On the one occasion when that was not the case, the subject of the petition was the same as the motion to be debated on that day.
On this matter, I agree with the Procedure Committee that reform on the lines suggested in motion No. 3 would not involve any real curtailment of Back Benchers' rights, and no one seriously argues to the contrary.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House aware that all this tidying up and rationalisation operates against the interests of any Member, from whichever party, who is determined to raise a subject? We can all easily go in for ballots. It takes a little effort, guts and sweat to queue for many hours. It is an interesting question of philosophy: should we operate a general ballot to the advantage of the Executive or give some chance to hon. Members who, rightly or wrongly—for whatever cause, good or bad—are prepared to sweat it out in that room upstairs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman intervenes at the wrong stage of my speech. When I deal with the relevant motion I shall express some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. He should allow me to come to that. I am dealing with motions Nos. 1 to 3; he is making a point about motion No. 5 with which I shall deal in a moment.
Under the terms of motion No. 2, if a motion for a by-election writ moved on a Friday—on which private Members' business has precedence—was opposed, it would not be pursued at that time on that Friday. This motion represents a modest improvement on the original recommendation. The Procedure Committee's proposal was that, if proceedings on such a motion had not been disposed of by 10 am, they should stand over to the next sitting day.
There are two good reasons for being a little more positive than the Procedure Committee. First, such a motion, if not taken formally, might not be disposed of in half an hour. It would be sensible to avoid starting something which might not be finished, but which could nevertheless encroach on private Members' business which was to follow.
Secondly, such a motion would take precedence over the presentation of petitions, and would therefore encroach on the time available for their presentation. The overall effect of the variation contained in my motion would be no different from the Procedure Committee's proposal, but it would lessen the scope for encroachment on private Members' time. Its effect would be that the by-election writ motion would stand over for consideration on the next business day—the Monday.
It has become customary for writs to be moved on a Tuesday, and it is most unlikely that a party would seek to move a writ on a Friday. In practice, polling normally takes place on a Thursday. By deferring the moving of a writ from a Friday to a Monday, the same two Thursdays would be available for polling.

Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House was a Member of Parliament on the two occasions when I moved a writ on a Friday. I was doing him, as well as many of my hon. Friends, a good turn on those two occasions—especially on the first, when Enoch Powell was involved in trying to keep people here through the weekend. I was trying to stop his queue-jumping Bill. The right hon. and learned


Gentleman will remember that, almost certainly, he would have been kept here Friday, Friday night, Saturday and Sunday until the Bill had got through the House. I was doing the Leader of the House a service.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the trail-blazing role played on that occasion by the hon. Gentleman. Since he undertook that noble task, the matter has been considered by the Procedure Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery); from that joint distillation of activity and intellectual effort, these proposals have emerged. That simple change —transplanting the day from Friday to Monday—will still leave the same two Thursdays available for polling.
I emphasise that the motion does not preclude the moving of a writ, but it prevents Members from using it as a ploy to delay the start of private Members' business. It takes its place alongside the other proposals in relation to private Members' business.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the Leader of the House leaves that point, will he confirm that what the Procedure Committee recommended would have stopped any proceedings at 10 am on a Friday on which there were private Members' Bills or private Members' motions? As I read it, under his motion, the person who moves the writ could speak for three hours, because it says "and is opposed". It cannot be opposed until the person who moves it stops speaking—that is the first moment at which it can be opposed. Surely that is so?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is an astute observer of the parliamentary scene. I hope that he is not right; it is certainly not intended that he should be right.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is right.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is why I treat my hon. Friend with such respect. The motion that I have moved is not the one to which my hon. Friend directs his gaze, which gives me the opportunity to consider it a little more if that is necessary.

Mr. Skinner: Oh, that's good.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Well, I have to take advantage of the opportunities presented to me.
The effect of motion No. 1 would be to prevent a private Member from moving a motion to amend or suspend Standing Orders, unless the House had previously agreed in the same Session that it was necessary or expedient to do so. In particular, it would prevent a private Member's motion from being used as a device to facilitate the passage of a private Member's Bill by providing additional time for it as exempted business, by giving it precedence over other private Members' Bills or by allocating specific time to it.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not in the middle of a sentence, even for my hon. Friend.
The Procedure Committee did not think that it would be acceptable to the House for private Members' motions to introduce significant procedural changes that could

affect the progress and priority of individual private Members' Bills. It thought that that would destroy the carefully balanced and well-understood arrangements for private Members' business.

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is talking about preventing a private Member from moving a motion. Does he agree that, in this instance, a private Member cannot bulldoze anything through the House? It all depends on the will of the House. Should not my right hon. and learned Friend say that he is preventing the whole sum of Back Benchers and everyone else from deciding whether they wish to allocate time to a particular motion? Is that not what he is really saying?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am saying that the arrangements that are basically in place for the deployment of time between public and private business and the management of the time available for private Members' business are the result of a great deal of analysis, thought and experience over a long period. As the House knows, in November the Government responded to certain recommendations of the Procedure Committee by extending the time available for private Members in aggregate—I think, by one day. It would not be sensible to allow that set of arrangements to be disturbed by private Members in the way identified in the motion.
The Procedure Committee thought that the change that we are seeking to prevent would destroy the carefully balanced and well-understood arrangements for private Members' business. For example, a Bill introduced under the ten-minute rule procedure—which may not be set down for Second Reading until private Members successful in a ballot have had the opportunity to choose their slot for Second Reading—could be given precedence over a ballot Bill.

Miss Widdecombe: Or over the will of the House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, but we do not think that the change would be sensible. The House has the opportunity to consider the matter today. Similarly, such a change could result in a Bill low in the ballot leap-frogging one that is higher up in the ballot.
The motion provides a balance for two other motions, which clear the decks, so far as is possible, to allow unimpeded consideration of private Members' business within the accepted procedures. This motion, which forms part of the trio, ensures that those procedures are maintained and not altered to favour a particular private Member's Bill. More generally, the motion precludes Standing Orders being amended by a private Member's motion. I agree with the Procedure Committee that, on balance, it is not appropriate that our procedures should be amended in that way.
I emphasise that the changes do not preclude general or specific procedural changes being the subject of a private Member's motion, but would prevent the motion from being couched in terms that could implement immediate change. Private Members would retain the right to express opinion on such matters, but not to make changes without wider support in the House than, perhaps, a low vote on a Friday at the initiative of one Member.

Mr. Beith: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to observe well-understood and established practices, does he not think that the Government should be subject to at least some degree of similar restraint? The


Government can, on a low vote in the House on a Friday, similarly move motions that change Standing Orders or —this happens more often—vary their impact or exempt certain business from their impact. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is worried about the balance being changed, why has he sat back and watched the balance shift in favour of the Government on similar matters over a long period?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a separate point. Today, we are concerned with the preservation of the existing balance, which the motions are designed to achieve.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I regret that I cannot continually give way. There is not a great deal of time, and I want to put the case before the House.
I shall deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) when he has had the opportunity to speak to it.
Taking the three motions together, and also taking account of the Sessional Order moved on 22 November 1989, they ensure that additional time is provided for private Members' business and that that business, as well as its timing and precedence, is—so far as possible—protected from interruption or disruption by other matters or by the misuse of otherwise legitimate procedural devices. That is the basis on which I believe the three motions provide an outcome that is both fair and balanced.
There are two motions dealing with ten-minute Bills. The effect of motion No. 4 would be that no ten-minute Bill would be introduced on Budget day. The slot would not be lost, but would be moved to the Monday following Budget day. In the unlikely event that the date of the Budget was to be announced so late that notice of a ten-minutes rule application had already been given for that day, the ten-minute Bill would be moved to the following Monday.

Mr. Skinner: I bet there is a loophole there.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There may be, but I hope not.
As the Procedure Committee suggests, I think that the proposal would be for the convenience of most hon. Members. It would not restrict the rights of Back Benchers, but would preserve them, given the various methods used to avoid a ten-minute Bill on Budget day. I know that some Members may relish the prospect of a Budget day slot, when the House is unusually full, but I think that for most Members it would be an unwarranted disruption and irritation. Speaking as an ex-Chancellor, I can confirm that I always welcomed the opportunity to get into my Budget speech without having to wait until after the presentation of a ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I speak with some experience of this matter, because I think that I was the last Member to have a ten-minute Bill on Budget day—back in 1985, when the Chancellor was the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). My recollection is that I received a very warm reception from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, the House gave me leave to introduce my Bill, despite the fact that it was critical of the Chancellor's handling of the economy.
I cannot think of any justification for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal. In previous years, the

Chancellor took retaliatory action by using some of his messenger boys—parliamentary private secretaries in the Treasury and elsewhere—to abuse the system by squatting in the Public Bill Office, on a rota basis, sometimes for several days and nights. They never had any intention of moving a motion. When it was too late for another hon. Member to take the slot, the Tory Member withdrew the motion and the House was deprived of the opportunity of a ten-minute rule slot on Budget day.
That was an abuse of the House through dog-in-the-manger tactics. It is wrong that the Leader of the House should want to move the goalposts and further limit the opportunity for Back-Bench Members to obtain a slot on Budget day. Does it have anything to do with the televising of the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman disproves his own case. If he is the only hon. Member ever to have presented a ten-minute rule Bill on Budget day, that proves that it is neither a substantial nor a long-felt wish for democratic rights. The hon. Gentleman was an eccentric in that achievement, and the fact that no one had done the same before shows that the overriding wish of the House has always been to get straight on to the Chancellor's Budget.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not want to widen the debate, because I sense that on the particular issue now under consideration I have the House on my side.
In making strenuous efforts subsequently to ensure that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West did not have an opportunity to repeat his success, and that subsequent Budgets were introduced without interruption, certain hon. Members performed a public service, legitimised by the recommendation of the Procedure Committee—and now by the House, when it votes.
The fifth motion was the subject of an intervention by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He has now come back in time to study that question. The effect of the motion will be to replace the existing first come, first served, queuing system with a ballot. Consideration of the case for that change arose in the last Session, when right hon. and hon. Members began queuing for increasingly long periods to secure slots for ten-minute Bills.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has many qualifications for intervening, but perhaps he will allow me to give way at a sensible point.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also allow me to intervene at a sensible point?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is for consideration.
The first come, first served, system led to friction because of the way in which right hon. and hon. Members took the place of others in the queue. It also caused difficulties for the House authorities. Because right hon. and hon. Members queued in the Public Bill Office conference room, it could not be used for its proper purpose, and it became necessary for the Clerk of the


House to inform Mr. Speaker that the work of the Public Bill Office was being affected—and he does not often make reports of that dramatic impact.

Mr. Winnick: As there are ballots for Adjournment debates and for oral questions, is there any reason why there should not be a ballot for ten-minute Bills? What is so holy and sacred about queueing all night? My view is not influenced in the least by the fact that the last time I did so I contracted shingles the following week.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, because it illustrates one style. In the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), one sees one hon. Member who is lusting for the right to queue all night, and another who is happy that I should take away that opportunity.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. I must be allowed to develop that point.
My predecessor as Leader of the House was originally disposed to move a similar motion last summer, but the problem eased and he did not do so. It is obvious that this motion evokes strong feelings among some Back Benchers on both sides of the House. The existing arrangements provide an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members who hold strong views on an issue to do something about it. They see the chance of 10 minutes of prime time as a reward for persistence and initiative—one that they would like to retain—rather than simply good fortune in a ballot.

Mr. Corbyn: I have introduced seven ten-minute Bills by means of queueing in the Public Bill Office conference room—although better facilities, such as heating, could be provided there. However, I have never been successful with a private Member's motion or a Bill under the ballot procedure, which I have used at every opportunity since entering the House.
I am not complaining of my lack of success in the ballot but making the point that I have been successful with ten-minute Bills by making an effort as an ordinary Back Bencher whereas I have never been successful under the ballot procedure. The motion will remove the opportunity for initiative.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall seek to explain that I am not doing that which the hon. Gentleman thinks I am doing.
I have identified the fact that a choice must be made between those who want a reward for their persistence and initiative and those who are prepared to rely on a ballot. Although persistence is commendable as a general virtue, we should not preserve a massive endurance test—particularly if it is likely to inconvenience the Clerk of the House. I should not wish to see a return to the situation that existed last summer. However, I am conscious of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I have to strike a balance between the rights that they wish to cherish, the effective working of the House, and the inconvenience that can be caused to Officers and other officials.
I am standing even further back from the fifth motion, which I have not yet moved, than from the others—and I shall be interested to hear the views of right hon. and hon.

Members on it. If there is a strong feeling that the existing arrangements should be maintained, I am prepared not to move it.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way now?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity to make a speech herself. I am trying to explain that I am so conscious of the balance of feeling on both sides of the House that I am willing to reach a conclusion in the light of the opinion that is expressed. I hope that my hon. Friend will contain her enthusiasm until an opportunity arises for her to speak.
If there were to be a recurrence of last summer's situation, I would not hesitate to bring the final motion before the House again. However, provided that we can maintain the existing balance, I do not intend to press it.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I must conclude.
Subject to my comments on the fifth motion, I believe that all five would, if passed, bring added clarity to our procedures and, taken together, be to the benefit of the House as a whole. Taken together, they do not unduly restrict or erode Back Benchers' rights but instead protect them by providing for private Members' business to be considered on its merits, without the intrusion of other matters. To balance that, it will not be possible for private Members to seek to alter the procedures of the House to benefit any particular private Member's Bill.
The motion relating to Budget day will preserve the slot for ten-minute Bills that would otherwise be lost. As to the fifth motion and the choice between endurance or ballot, I am ready to listen to the views of the House, because I should not want to press ahead if it does not have general support.

Dr. John Cunningham: The time available for private Members' Bills is already limited but is nevertheless very important. There is general agreement that that time should be safeguarded whenever possible. When I escaped from the minefield of the rate support grant, I little realised that I was entering another minefield of procedural argument that crosses the Floor of the House.

Mr. Winnick: And it is far more complex.

Dr. Cunningham: It is far more complex, and certainly far more dangerous.
It is not surprising that discussions about making changes to the time allowed to private Members are themselves contentious. In the past, private Members' time has been used to introduce legislation on abortion, the abolition of hanging, regional policy, wildlife and countryside issues, and the protection of badgers. Those were all highly controversial and important issues. I support the Leader of the House's view that, whatever else we want, we do not want any diminution of the time available to private Members to set the agenda of the House.

Mr. Corbyn: It was good of my hon. Friend to outline some of the Bills of significant social and environmental importance introduced in private Members' time. Does he


agree that it should be increased so that Bills can be debated? That would end the nonsense of the objection system and provide an opportunity not just to present a Bill in 10 minutes but to debate it, and allow the introduction of legislation by Back Benchers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the balance has shifted away from right hon. and hon. Members to the Executive who occasionally inform—or, rather, misinform—the House about their actions?

Dr. Cunningham: Although I agree with my hon. Friend that we should have more time, that is not one of the points under discussion today. As I understand from the proposals on the Order Paper, private Members are getting slightly more time in the House. That is to be welcomed. As for more time on ten-minute Bills, the Leader of the House has made it clear that he does not intend to move his proposal for ballots for ten-minute Bills. Although I have no objection to a change in procedure for balloting for ten-minute Bills, I am quite content that we should allow hon. Members more time to discuss the proposal.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the valid point he is making about Back Benchers' time—I am sure that all hon. Members agree that Back Benchers should have as much time as possible —does he deprecate the fact that uniquely, on Tuesday, a Front-Bench spokesman presented a ten-minute Bill?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not deprecate that. As I have said at the Dispatch Box in respect of applications under Standing Order No. 20, every hon. Member has the same rights in these matters. I do not accept the argument that a Front Bencher who wishes to raise an important issue —a constituency issue, for example—should be denied the opportunity available to other hon. Members to use the procedures of the House to pursue it or to raise it.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I have said to my hon. Friend that I do not wish to take up a lot of time because our debate has been severely curtailed.

Mr. Skinner: It is in answer to the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).

Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way, but I hope that nobody will complain that I have taken too long.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps I take a different view on these motions from that of my hon. Friend, but that is not the point I am making right now. The ten-minute Bill on Tuesday would have been moved by a Labour Front Bencher in any case. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East thinks that the person who got the ten-minute Bill was a Back Bencher, but it was a Front Bencher—my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—who passed it on to another Front Bencher.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it was my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) who got the ten-minute slot in the first place. However, perhaps I can move on.
It is no secret that usually, but not always, there is great controversy, not on party political lines but across the Floor of the House, when private Members' Bills are brought before the House. We know that there are alliances across the Floor of the House for and against

many of those controversial matters. It seems today that, although right hon. and hon. Members present have been diametrically opposed on certain issues and on the merits of Bills, they seem to be joined together to defend the status quo on the procedures. In other words, they want to reserve the opportunity to use, or perhaps in some case to abuse, the procedures of the House to defeat controversial issues in private Members' time because they do not agree with the merits of a Bill before the House.
I welcome the three motions referring to the moving of the writ, the presentation of petitions and the use of private Members' motions to change Standing Orders because they are a serious and welcome attempt to safeguard precious private Members' time. The proposals come with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, which I also applaud. Those three motions are worthy of general support.
I have already referred to ballots for ten-minute Bills. I shall not waste any more time on that, as the Leader of the House has said that he will not pursue that matter today. I turn now to ten-minute Bills on Budget day. In 1981 my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) introduced a ten-minute Bill when the Leader of the House was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that occasion. I also well remember the amusing and witty speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), which he rightly said was enjoyed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who was the hapless victim of that speech. However, I personally support the view that on a day as important as Budget day we should not have to wait any additional time for the presentation of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As there will be no diminution of the time available for ten-minute Bills—it will simply not be possible to introduce them on Budget day—I support that proposal.
It is inevitable that proposals to change the procedures of the House will meet strong opposition and be regarded as controversial. I have never been a fan or a supporter of the more arcane aspects of procedure and the way in which we conduct our business. I believe that the whole matter of procedure and how we deal with business in the House is long overdue a fundamental overhaul, and I hope that we can achieve that before much longer. For the life of me I do not believe that our constituents think that the way in which we proceed on many occasions is sensible in the interests of either good legislative scrutiny of the Executive or producing good legislation. I am sure that if we asked our constituents they would like a breath of fresh air blown through the Chamber and other aspects of procedure in the House of Commons. Although by comparison to what I have been calling for these measures are relatively small and even modest, I welcome the reports of the Procedure Committee and offer general support to the propositions enunciated by the Leader of the House and I hope that the four motions that I support can be determined today. If that is possible, I shall certainly vote for them.

Sir Peter Emery: I start by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and congratulating him on setting quite a precedent in bringing


forward two debates on procedure within four months or so—twice in this Session of Parliament—when previous Leaders of the House have not been able to find time for reports that have stood for months and years without being debated. I welcome that immensely.
I was delighted to hear the shadow Leader of the House's commitment to reform of procedure. I have tried time and again to drag the procedures of the House screaming into the 20th century. I welcome the fact that we have support from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. We have not always had that in the past, and it is a most encouraging step forward.
Let me make it absolutely clear that one of the important principles, as any hon. Member who has sat on the Procedure Committee will agree, has been that the objective of the Procedure Committee has been at all times to try to defend the rights and the time available to Back Benchers. That is one of the major factors always in the minds of those on the Procedure Committee, because only they can protect Back Benchers from the power of the Executive. This debate is important, because that is exactly what the motions are intended to do.
It is immensely important that motions 1, 2 and 3 are seen as a package; they must not be taken individually. In the report of the Procedure Committee it is clearly stated that they must be introduced only as a package. What is the reason for that? After the debate on 20 January 1989, Mr. Speaker said:
I hope that we shall not go through this kind of thing again." 
He said later
It is for the Leader of the House … to put his proposals to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it will consider them."—[Official Report, 20 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 661-62.]
We then had a letter from the Leader of the House asking us to consider how we could defend private Members' time.
All this arose because of somebody trying to "cheat" or "find a way round" the normal procedure for private Members' Bills, and those who were against that saying they would find a way of stopping it. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was most effective. When an hon. Member introduced a motion on a private Members' day to try to give special power to her Bill and put it above the Bills of other Members in the ballot, that was seen by many hon. Members as being unfair. The hon. Member for Bolsover said that a way would be found of putting an end to this, and that is exactly what happened, and the House decided that that procedure would not be followed.
Arising from that, therefore, we have brought forward this balance. We have said in the first motion that a private Member will not be able to gain special powers by a private Member's motion that goes beyond the normal allotted time. It would be wrong for that Member to be able to obtain that time in the first instance. If the Member can get the approval of the House twice, that is another matter. But, if we take that power away from Members, we must at the same time try to establish the balance that no other Member should be able to interfere with the private Member's motion time either by introducing petitions or by moving writs in order to take that time away.
We are attempting to ensure that when a Member wins time for a private Member's motion he or she will be able

to have all the time from 10 o'clock until 2.30 uninterrupted on the motion; or, if it is a private Member's Bill, that time cannot be eaten into. If either of these is limited, the balance is taken away and preference given to one side.
I have tried to point out to the House that these three motions all hang together and that in our judgement it would be wrong to amend them, or to accept two and leave one out. Indeed, if the House wished to do that I would say that we ought not to have the other two either. We either have the package as a whole or we have nothing at all.

Miss Widdecombe: I will ignore, until I have some chance to contribute to the debate, the rather vulgar references to cheating and queue jumping. But is there not a very clear distinction between the three motions, inasmuch as two are deliberately designed to obstruct and one is designed to take away the will of the House? If the House believes that a Member is trying to cheat or queue jump, the House can say no; if it thinks otherwise, it can say yes. Why does the Procedure Committee think that the House should not be able to decide the issue itself?

Sir Peter Emery: I am amazed. I have spent some time trying to explain the point and it has been entirely ignored. We are not taking powers away; we are stopping anybody getting round the procedure. Any hon. Member who believes otherwise has either not understood or not been in the House long enough to know the normal procedure.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman did not understand the question.

Sir Peter Emery: I understood it very well. The hon. Lady is afraid that she or other hon. Members will not be given special power to put something to the House to extend their right and enable them to further a Bill for longer. We are saying that this is "cheating"—that is in inverted commas and it was in inverted commas when I first said it—getting round the normal understanding of the ballot and the allocation of time to private Members. Private Members must realise that if they want a massive amount of time for their private Bills, they stand very little chance of getting them through, unless they can get general agreement.
The next two motions concern ten-minute Bills. The first concerns a ten-minute Bill on a Budget day. The Procedure Committee believed that it was the wish of most Back Benchers to get on to the Budget, and that they did not want this to be interfered with by the jollity of a ten-minute Bill speech. The Committee wanted to ensure that, if a Bill was not to be moved on Budget day, the slot for a private Member would not be taken away; in other words, private Members' time would not be lost. I am delighted that the Government have been willing to move in that direction and even allow a ten-minute Bill to be introduced on a Monday, which is not the normal time, in order to ensure that Back-Bench time is not taken away.
Perhaps I should remind Members what the ten-minute Bill is really about. It is intended to give Back-Bench Members the opportunity to introduce legislation, but if one analyses the facts, one sees that this is not what is happening at the moment. In the last Parliament, 194 ten-minute Bills were introduced on the Floor of the House. Permission was refused for only 23 at the time of their introduction. Only two of the 194 reached the statute book.

Mr. Skinner: One was yours.

Sir Peter Emery: No, that was a private Bill, not a private Member's Bill, and there is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a lot of difference.
The slot for the ten-minute Bill has altered from being a means of satisfying the desire of a Member to get legislation through. It has become a slot in which Back-Bench or other Members can make a ten-minute speech in prime time on a political issue.

Mr. Winnick: Why not?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Why not?". That might be a fair question, but I think it right that hon. Members understand this when we are looking at the motion on leave to bring in a Bill.
What happened in the last Session was that hon. Members queued upstairs in the Committee Corridor sometimes for as long as four or five days. [Interruption.] I am told a fortnight. I can confirm four or five days, but it may have been longer. That, I believe, is immensely undignified.
Few hon. Members who play a leading role in the House can afford to spend up to a fortnight queuing. Balloting would enable the hon. Member for Bolsover to be in his place in the Chamber for questions. Hon. Members who play a major role in the House do not have the opportunity of a ten-minute Bill if the queueing system is abused. I am told that there is a working agreement to deal with this; I hope only that that is not a carve-up. If we return to the undignified and insanitary situation of hon. Members queueing for days on end, we shall return to what has been widely accepted in the House as an unfair system.

Mr. Winnick: If queueing is so marvellous, as hon. Members seem to believe, why should not we queue for early-day motions or to be the first hon. Members on the list to ask the Prime Minister a question? Surely the logic of that would be along the lines suggested by the critics of balloting. If we ballot for other matters, why not for ten-minute Bills?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman—who is a member of my Committee, and I thank him for the work that he does for it—demonstrates impeccable logic—on this occasion, anyway.
Balloting protects the rights of the majority of hon. Members, not the minority who are willing to queue for a fortnight, and it will assist hon. Members who wish to play a major role in the House. That needs to be said and to be understood.
I urge hon. Members to ensure that the first three motions are passed because they achieve a proper balance that will ensure that when an hon. Member wins the ballot for a private Member's Bill or private Member's motion the time allocated will not be interfered with by hon. Members using procedural methods to further other matters. I hope that the motion relating to introducing Bills on Budget day will be accepted and that the power to deal with ten-minute Bills will be held in reserve in case the procedure gets out of hand again.

Mr. A. J. Beith: There were times when I thought that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) was legislating for a House without people,

in which the reality of hon. Members wanting to pursue various causes was absent from our proceedings. I say that with some concern because I have worked with the hon. Gentleman for many years on the Procedure Committee, and I value the fairmindedness that he brings to its proceedings.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for recognising the difficulty in which the House would have been placed if there had been a vote on all the motions without a proper opportunity to debate them. He responded helpfully to hon. Members' requests. We shall reach a decision on only one of the motions and deal with the others at a later date. However, the other motions have been introduced into the debate, so they must be considered.
The background to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was more extensive than the hon. Member for Honiton suggested. He said that an issue arose in the debate on abortion—it also arose in a later debate on a Bill about embryos—but he must realise that the principle that he enunciated, that the balance of private Members' time must always be preserved, goes back a little further. The House would never have passed legislation on abortion at any time in the past 50 years unless the balance had been deliberately changed. The Abortion Act 1967 was passed in Government time. The Government decided that they would change the arrangements and make time available.
The hon. Gentleman must also take into account how the issue came to light. He must recognise that the purpose of the motion brought before the House at that time was to take more private Members' time. Those who did not like it thought that it was a smash-and-grab raid on private Members' time. However, it added hugely to private Members' time by allowing a Bill to be considered in a way that the Government would insist that a Bill of their own was considered if they could not get it through in the time available. They do that every week of the year, and sometimes every day of the week. It is no good hon. Members shedding crocodile tears and saying that we are here to protect private Members' time by ensuring that hon. Members do not grab more time than the Government are prepared to offer. The House was being invited to accept or reject a motion that would have given hon. Members more time than they are normally given by the Government.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me. I would normally give way to him willingly, but he should learn that lesson.

Sir Peter Emery: May I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way? I was unaware that he was trying to catch my eye. Therefore, I will not interfere in his speech.

Mr. Beith: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that.
Hard cases make bad law. This matter has arisen from two occasions when hon. Members were lucky enough in the ballot to raise a subject of their choice. On the majority of occasions, the motion or resolution is debated and talked out. However, that offers the hon. Member an opportunity to ventilate an issue. It is rare that these circumstances arise, and it is likely that that will remain so.
The House must think carefully before changing its procedures in response to one or two incidents, because the House runs a risk when it does that. Not long ago, the Government lost business because the Consolidated Fund Bill ran through the night. There was a great panic and Front-Bench spokesmen said, "We must never let that happen again". They therefore changed the procedure for the Consolidated Fund Bill by introducing a regimented series of timed debates that offer no flexibility. That change was not justified on its merits but was made in response to a particular incident. It is always advisable to step back and think whether a change is desirable in the long term rather than as an appropriate response to an incident.
When I looked at the motion in more detail, I became even more anxious about its long-term desirability. It is a draconian motion—Henry VIII clauses have nothing on this—because it does not merely preclude hon. Members from extending the time available for a private Members' Bill or from jumping the queue; it prevents them from changing any Standing Orders in private Members' time. That is one of the reasons why I tabled two amendments. There is no obvious reason for the motion.
Under the motion, Parliament is trying to bind its successors, which we are not supposed to do. The motion says not only that something will be the case but that no hon. Member can introduce a motion to change it. It is an attempt by Parliament to bind its successors by ensuring that an hon. Member cannot change the effect even of this Standing Order. The reason for including paragraph (e) was to stop hon. Members doing what the Government do so often—dispense with the effects of a Standing Order.
Paragraph (d) embraces the entire book of Standing Orders within the terms of the motion. If hon. Members decided that they were fed up with the arrangement by which they book a seat at Prayers in order to keep a seat for the day, and an hon. Member tabled a motion to change that, it would be ineffective because the Table Office would say, "Sorry. We cannot accept this motion."
If an hon. Member thought that we should change the Standing Orders so that we did not have to wear a top hat or otherwise to be seated and covered when raising a point of order during a Division, that hon. Member could not go to the Table Office and table a motion to make that change on a private Members' day. An hon. Member would be unlikely to want to do that, because there would undoubtedly be more pressing public issues that he would want to raise. So it is pointless even to prevent him from doing it.
I cannot understand why the Procedure Committee or the Leader of the House should table a motion to take away from private Members the right to put before the House changes in the Standing Orders, other than in a motion, which the Government can conveniently ignore, expressing an opinion. There is no point the Leader of the House saying that, if the House passes opinion motions, the effect of them would be carried out. He knows that such an assurance is worth no more than his tenure in office as Leader of the House.
All sorts of undertakings have been given from the Government Front Bench by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessors to do all manner of things. An undertaking was once given by a predecessor of the right

hon. and learned Gentleman that there would be time for prayers against negative statutory instruments on the Floor of the House whenever such time was sought. That undertaking has been dishonoured almost every month in the life of Parliament while I have been here. So passing opinion motions is no good. The Government are taking away from private Members their right to invite the House to change our Standing Orders.
I do not know any local authority in Britain that would have a ruling that precluded councillors from bringing before councils motions to change their standing orders. Sometimes there are built-in procedures to make such a step more difficult, such as a larger number of members having to support a motion, or the necessity for a larger majority or the need for a set number of members to be present and voting in a division.
It would have been worth the House considering procedures of that type. But to say that private Members can never in any circumstances bring before the House an effective motion to change or modify the effect of our Standing Orders is an extraordinary, perverse and draconian step to take.

Sir Peter Emery: It is not as draconian as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The motion says, in effect, that unless the House has previously agreed that the motion shall come forward, it shall not come forward a second time. So there must be two bites at the cherry; it cannot be done on one motion—there must be two. In other words, it is not that one can never do it but that one needs two, not one, motions to do it.

Mr. Beith: What is the effect of that? It means that one must come up in the ballot twice. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that in his time in the House he had not come up in the ballot once.

Mr. Skinner: Me neither.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been in the House longer than I have and he has never come up in the ballot for private Members' motions, though I am sure that his name has been put in every time. Now, we must come up not once but twice in the same Session of Parliament if we are to have some effect, or have a chum or croney say, "Never mind that I want to raise the question of the terrible plight of people in Cambodia or the question of the poverty of people in parts of the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency. I will give my day to you so that you may have a second attempt at a debate."
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House are asking us to accept the inconceivable if they imagine that that is a reasonable process. It is not so bad if the Government must apply twice for something, because they have all the time in the world. They can easily appear twice before the House with a motion to achieve a change.
So the motion is shifting the balance of power from private Members to the Government. When I heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) supporting the motion, I realised that I was on the right side. When the Government and a spokesman of the Official Opposition get together, private Members are in trouble.

Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) got as worked up about some of


the important political issues of the day as he does about the subject under discussion, he might be on the right side for once.
I went through the process of consulting my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party and in the shadow Cabinet before expressing my view on the Floor of the House. I made it clear that I was expressing a personal view. I hope that my hon. Friends will support me, but they all have a free vote.

Mr. Beith: I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Gentleman could not have been here for Prime Minister's Question Time, when I got quite worked up about the issue which has been occupying the House for most of the day. The hon. Gentleman made an unnecessary and gratuitous remark.
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee said that it was all part of a package. He said, in effect, "This is a restriction on private Members, but it is part of a package." One must be careful about suspicious packages, and we have been given plenty of advice to that effect. This package is particularly suspicious because it contains matters about which hon. Members were not originally aware and which go far beyond its original purpose.
It is also a package with an item missing. When the Procedure Committee decided on the package, it had before it an amendment for which five of the Committee had voted, including those who had voted for the other portions of the package. That amendment would have provided that as part of the deal private Members would have a limited version of the opportunity that Governments have to extend the time available for Bills that they put before the House. It was suggested that that should happen, not on a Friday—when there is the fear that it may be difficult for hon. Members, such as me, from distant constituencies, to be present—Monday, so that private Members would have an opportunity to suspend the 10 o'clock rule in the way that the Government suspend it every day, and as they are doing today.
The Government must not complain, for on the Order Paper today is a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule so that they may have time to have the Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill considered. Five of the 11 members of the Procedure Committee wished to say that private Members should have that opportunity in a limited form on a Monday, but that is not in the package because it was defeated by six votes to five. As a result, it has become a notably unbalanced package.
We shall not vote on this issue tonight. We shall vote on the issue about ten-minute Bills on Budget day, which seems to be a product of televising the proceedings in the House of Commons. I was in favour of televising our proceedings, although that may have given rise to some odd results, and being embarrassed about having a ten-minute Bill moved on Budget day seems to be one of them.
I cannot work up any enthusiasm for the idea that we must deny hon. Members the chance of bringing forward a Bill on that day. I accept that it is not the loss of a slot, that it is fair to private Members overall, and that such opportunity will be available on the following Monday. But I cannot bring myself to rescue the Government from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who added to the proceedings usefully when he brought forward budget proposals of his own.
On the motion that the ten-minute Bill procedure should change and that we should move to a ballot, instead of hon. Members having to queue, a finely balanced argument exists. There is something to be said for endeavour and for procedures that reflect an hon. Member's determination to raise an issue. People outside the House do not realise how much we have become dependent on the lottery and the ballot.
Most of our constituents imagine that we raise issues in the House because of our preparedness to get stuck in and because we are determined to speak out and say our piece. Up to a point that is the case, but it is not the case for many things, including private Members' Bills, motions, questions to the Prime Minister and questions to individual Ministers. These are all a lottery, a ballot, but the ten-minute Bill procedure is down to endeavour. The endeavour may, however, become rather disproportionate when it involves hon. Members having to occupy sleeping bags for three or four days. Nevertheless, I consider it to be a finely balanced issue.
When compared with the motions that will come before the House later, the issue on which we will vote tonight does not seem to raise great excitement. A whole shift in the balance of power between the Government and private Members over the opportunity to invite the House to consider our procedures is a fundamental change which is undesirable and should not arise simply because one incident caused some argument and controversy at the time.

7 pm

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I, too, am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for agreeing not to move all the motions that have been tabled. The time allowed is, in any case, totally insufficient when we are sweeping away private Members' rights, some of which date back to 1927. So I am grateful to him for agreeing to postpone four of the debates. The result is that I am able to support the one motion, but I hope that when the various issues return to the House, adequate time for debate will be provided.
I make that point particularly to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of Back-Benchers' rights. We should not have such sweeping motions, five all bunched together, in such a confined space of time. My right hon. and learned Friend will have taken account of the fact that during business questions and in this debate substantial feeling has been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House about the way in which the motions could be ill-advised. We must debate them thoroughly and reach proper conclusions.
It is unfortunate that the motion is in the name of the Leader of the House rather than in the name of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Although we are to have a free vote— must be as we are concerned with procedure and Back-Benchers' rights—it stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend, there is bound to be moral pressure on many hon. Members to support the motion. Great as is my respect for the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the moral pressure on hon. Members would be somewhat less if the motions stood in his name.
I am happy to agree with the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but I


dissent strongly on motions Nos. 1 and 5. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House inadvertently misled us when he said that it was a choice between a ballot, which is a parliamentary euphemism for a lottery, and queueing. That is not the question. The problems that arose last year with queueing did not arise as a result of private Members' initiatives. No private Member queues for four or five days. Private Members were queueing quite happily for a reasonable time to get a Bill. I speak from personal experience. As my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee kindly pointed out, I have not been here long, but even in that time I have managed to get two ten-minute Bills by queueing only for a couple of hours.
The procedure got out of hand—and the house should understand this—when the Government and Opposition Front Benches became involved and decided to turn the matter into an inter-party competition. The procedure then became similar to the procedure for Prime Minister's questions when all hon. Members are reminded to go in for it. It became similar to the way we sign the book of motions, when hon. Members stand in the Lobbies exhorting other hon. Members to sign them. Suddenly, the whole procedure was no longer a Back-Bench initiative, but an inter-party competition. If that element is taken out of the procedure and it is returned to the Back Benchers, we shall not be queueing for four or five days any more than we have in the past. Had this matter been left to the good sense of the Back-Bench Members none of this would have arisen in the first place. My right hon. and learned Friend has not given the House the whole picture—inadvently, I am sure. However, I have described the background against which the issue should be examined.
At present, hon. Members queue for ten-minute Bills and obtain them by initiative. It is the only remaining slot not governed by a draw from a hat or by having to rely on being lucky in a raffle. If an hon. Member wants to raise a pressing piece of constituency business, a conscience issue or another matter, all he has to do is to have a bit of endurance and initiative. It is deeply offensive that we should be told that one of the reasons for changing the system is that the Clerks object to us sitting in their room. For whom does this House exist? Is it for the benefit of the Clerks or of hon. Members? It is for the benefit of hon. Members, so that argument should carry no weight with us. If we queue in the Clerks' room for a fortnight—which I have never seen done—that is our right and it should not matter what they say.
I shall inevitably be seen as having a specific interest in motion No. 1 inasmuch as I have used the procedure. That is true, but although that procedure has been used twice on a pro-life issue, the fact remains that it is open to be used on any issue. It cannot be abused in quite the way that other motions are abused because it depends on an extremely rare combination of circumstances. First, an hon. Member must have a Bill sufficiently high in the ballot to avoid accusations of blatant queue-jumping. If his Bill is Nos. 18, 19 or 20, this procedure will not commend itself greatly to the House. Secondly, either he or a sympathiser must draw first place in the ballot for private Members' motions on a Friday. Thirdly, the sympathiser must do that in time to influence the passage of the Bill. It is no good coming first in the ballot two months after the

Bill has failed and all other Bills are on Report. The combination of circumstances is so rare that it is not surprising that it has happened only twice in the last decade. Do we need to take a sledgehammer to crack something that occurs only twice in a decade? Statistically it is not worth bothering about.
There is a distinction between that procedure and the procedure for petitions and by-election writs. If an hon. Member decides to move a by-election writ, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did, there is nothing that the House can do to prevent him under the present rules. He can stand up, move his writ and talk about the Yorkshire weather for three hours five minutes, and there is nothing that the House can do to prevent it. If 500 other hon. Members want to debate the alternative business, which is first on the Order Paper, there is still nothing that they can do. If 50 hon. Members decide to move petitions, there is nothing that the House can do to stop them. But if an hon. Member comes to the House and asks for extra time, the House can say "No". The difference is between the House having the final say and private Members being able to use their own initiative to be obstructive.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is nothing to prevent a Back-Bench Member from moving the closure on a speech for moving a petition. That is perfectly in order.

Miss Widdecombe: That is wrong, as I found to my own cost and from my own experience. Until it has been proposed and until the proposer has sat down, an hon. Member cannot move the closure. The House has no sanction over that, but it has a sanction over a private Member who wants to obtain extra time. A private Member may want to do that for two reasons. First, he or she may consider that his or her Bill is so vital that the House must grant it extra time. If the House decides against that, the House can say "No" and no harm is done, except that that hon. Member has wasted a whole morning in putting forward a motion with which the House has no sympathy. Secondly, an hon. Member may ask the House for redress. Perhaps the hon. Member has been subject to considerable filibustering, to disruptive tactics or to an ingenious use of parliamentary devices. That hon. Member may come to the House to say, "I know that we have a majority for this Bill. That has already been demonstrated on Second Reading. I have been prevented from proceeding and I ask the House for justice." The House can still say "No". That is the point of motion No. 1. The House already has sanctions, and there is no need to extend them.
The issue of a low vote on Fridays has been raised. My right hon. and learned Friend knows what happens here on Fridays. If there is a very unpopular motion or Bill, a low vote will not enable it to proceed. Some hon. Member who is as well endowed with eloquence as the hon. Member for Bolsover will talk all morning, thereby forcing a closure motion. But if fewer than 100 hon. Members vote, that closure cannot be carried. An unpopular Bill or motion cannot be carried on a low vote on a Friday. The case advanced today has been made on a set of false assumptions that bear no relation to what happens here, to what has gone wrong with queueing for ten-minute Bills, to what goes on when the House can say "No" to a request for extra time or to what happens on Friday when a low vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) knows well, can be fatal to a Bill.
This is a serious assault on Back-Bench time. In 1927, one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, ruled that it was not in the specific competence of the Government to move motions relating to time and additional time, or to move any motion relating to the business of the House. He said that it was down to any hon. Member,
providing he can find the time to do so.
At present, the only way that he can find time to do so is through the most uncertain process of a ballot, which is a euphemism for a lottery. Are we going to take even that small, pathetic, last little hope away from Back-Bench Members? Are not the motions really about the balance of power between the Executive and Back-Bench Members? Motions Nos. 1 and 5 do not protect Private Members' time, but reduce our already very small rights still further.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I agree with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) about the balance of power between the two Front Benches and the Back Benches. During the 20 years that I have been here, there have been several instances when, because of Back-Bench activity, the two Front Benches have got together and managed to find a system to enable them to stop the limited power of the Back Benches.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about the Consolidated Fund Bill. That was a classic. We used to be able to keep the Government up. We once managed to prevent the Secretary of State for the Environment from carrying out the important policy measure of selling off old peoples' bungalows. The Government measure had to be brought back, but it was not until much later. What happened? The Front Benches got together and decided to curtail Back-Bench activity. Now the Consolidated Fund Bill finishes at 9 o'clock, by order, as a result of the changes that took place.
Such changes cannot be good for any Back Bencher. That power was used by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when the Labour party was in government. He and his mates used it successfully one morning. We understand that such Back-Bench activity can take place whichever party is in power.
I oppose all five motions. I will not pick and choose. Unlike the hon. Lady, I think that we should oppose all five, because they are part of a package, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), said.
When the Adjournment motion is debated in the summer and at Christmas, hon. Members can raise matters concerning their constituencies or whatever. The practice used to be that if an hon. Member went on beyond three hours, the Government had to have a majority of 100 to closure the debate. If the Government did not have a majority of 100, we carried on. What was wrong with that?
But what happened? The Government said, "It is terribly bad having to keep 100 people here a day before the hols. Would it not be a good idea to get together and finish the debate after three hours, by an order of the House?" My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) joined me and, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on one occasion in voting against the Government. It would be interesting to look at Hansard—

Mr. Don Dixon: I did not.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that he did not.

Mr. Dixon: I am not joining my hon. Friend tonight.

Mr. Skinner: That suggests that my hon. Friend did join us on the other occasion. We voted against the Government because we felt that it was necessary to stop the two Front Benches joining together and taking away Back-Bench opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has a point. He says that these are only minor things, and that we need much bigger changes. If the Government Front Bench, together with the Opposition Front Bench, said that they intended to reform the House of Commons lock, stock and barrel, by having full-time Members and stopping moonlighting and boozing, by clocking on and clocking off and starting at a proper time, that would be all right.
I would not mind coming to work before the streets are aired. Some of us used to work like that before we came here, so it would not be hard for us to get here at 9 o'clock. We used to be at work at 6 o'clock in the morning. Such reforms would give more power to Back Benchers. Sadly, we are living not in that world but in a world that has been fashioned by the nobs and snobs of yesteryear. This is a quaint little place, based on the Eton debating society. We could choose not to come in; we could say that it is not for us, or we can learn the rules and destabilise. That is what I have been doing for about 20 years. I am not keen on throwing all that experience away.

Mr. Graham Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that he has a vested interest in preserving the present system.

Mr. Skinner: No. I have already made the point that I want to see changes, but only a few of us are keen on developing a system of full-time Members of Parliament and proper hours. I get the impression that things will not change before I leave the House, so I have to use the system. That is why I oppose these intrusions on Back-Bench activity. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has caught on to the idea that it would be good if he managed not to upset everybody. That is why he is moving only one motion tonight, the one relating to Budget day.
If the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure wanted to bring in a package, why did he not propose the curtailment of some activities that are not liked by the elite, but at the same time give Back Benchers other rights? We could have had 10 motions instead of five—five to curtail activities and five to give Back Benchers more opportunities. For instance, the Government might have proposed that Front-Bench speeches should not last more than 20 minutes. Part of the total package might have been extra Adjournments for Back-Bench Members.

Sir Peter Emery: We have suggested that.

Mr. Skinner: It is not in the package; I cannot see it.

Sir Peter Emery: It is in our report.

Mr. Skinner: Oh, it is in a report. It is buried in a report; it is as deep as that. The hon. Gentleman used his diving skill to bury it. I am talking about the package that is before the House.
Hon. Members know that the reason for the five new measures is mainly the television cameras. They are all about regulations for the cameras. Everywhere the television cameras have gone, they have managed to


fashion the activities that they screen. We now have football matches starting at five past 3 on a Sunday. Why? Because it suits television. On occasions, horse racing is stopped because it is not synchronised with a rugby league match.
The reason the Government want to tidy up the procedure is to make sure that the television authorities know what is happening on a Friday and to ensure that there will not be extra activity. The Government do not want ten-minute Bills before the Budget, because it is not nice for the Chancellor. They do not want such activity. That is wrong. Why should we give in to the television moguls?
Not all the motions relate to Fridays, but the Friday bit is important for the Leader of the House. He has latched on quickly. He has been gallivanting round the world, but this is not the United Nations. As Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to come here regularly at half past 3 and has to stay late at night. It suddenly dawned on him that he has to be here on a Friday as well. One thing he can do is make sure that he does not need 100 hon. Members here on a Friday too often. What does he do? He says that he will curtail the activities of hon. Members. So part of the package is to make the task of the Government easier.
On the question of queueing for ten-minute Bills, I suggest that the Leader of the House should have a site meeting before he changes the procedure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can go with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) when he is queueing for a Bill to give pensioners a better lot. He can get his sleeping bag, a little television set and his sandwiches.

Mr. Corbyn: No drink.

Mr Skinner: No, no drink. If the Leader of the House does that, he will get a better picture of what takes place.
The hon. Member for Maidstone was upset about moving writs and so on. She will be surprised to learn that I am not against the idea of hon. Members using the opportunity to combine a motion and a Bill. There may be occasions when the procedure is not right, but not on the subject on which the hon. Lady used it, nor on the one on which Enoch Powell used it. I do not think the House wanted the hon. Lady's Bill; otherwise, hon. Members would not have let me get away with what I did. By and large, most hon. Members said, "It is not a bad idea, because we would only be here on Saturday and Sunday; Skinner is saving us the weekend."
If an hon. Member had an important case and got a high place, not No. 7 but No. 2, the Bill would go through. One Bill goes through and the other does not. Two more Bills have gone through quickly on the first occasion. That means that three Bills have gone into Committee, but one that has drawn the No. 2 place will have some difficulty because there are already three Bills in Committee.
Hon. Members may say, "That is unfair: there are three Bills in Committee, and the one that has drawn the No. 2 place has not a cat in hell's chance." Two more Bills may get through, and then it is all over. I think that, on an occasion when a Bill suits the majority of hon. Members, the House might decide that it would not be a bad idea if—by a fluke—the motion to get it through was passed. I

might not even move a writ to stop it; I might encourage it. There are such occasions, albeit caused by flukes or accidents.

Miss Widdecombe: That happened to Powell's Bill.

Mr. Skinner: It did not, because Powell used a surrogate. Powell's Bill was all about embryo research—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [26 January].

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 38.

Division Ho, 62]
[7 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Foster, Derek


Alison, Rt Han Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus


Allason, Rupert
Freeman, Roger


Allen, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Golding, Mrs Llin


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Goodlad, Alastair


Ashby, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bardry, Tony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grist, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Ground, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boswell, Tim
Hague, William


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hartley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buckley, George J.
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Campbell-Savours, D, N.
Howarth, G, (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howe, Ht Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carringlon, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G, (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Sir Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Janman, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couch man, James
Key, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N;thfield)


Davies, Q, (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dixon, Don
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dunn, Bob
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lightbown, David


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Sir Peter
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Favell, Tony
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Pal rick


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Maples, John






Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Snape, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spearing, Nigel


Mellor, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Michael, Allun
Squire, Robin


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morrison, Sir Charles
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stern, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Slevens, Lewis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Needham, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Thompson, D, (Calder Valley)


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thorne, Neil


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvina
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Pike, Pater L.
Wadeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wareing, Robert N.


Redwood, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wheeler, Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sack villa, Hon Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. John M Taylor and


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Sims, Roger






NOES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Madden, Max


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meale. Alan


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Nellist, Dave


Corbett, Robin
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tam
Salmond, Alex


Fearn, Ronald
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fisher, Mark
Taylor. Teddy (S'end E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Gordon, Mildred
Wallace, James


Hinchliffe, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wray, Jimmy


Howells, Geraint



Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That no notice may be given under Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) for a day on which Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared his intention of opening his Budget; but

(i) notices proposed to be given for such day, and
(ii) notices so given for a day in respect of which such intention is subsequently declared,
shall be treated as having been given for the first Monday on which the House shall sit after the Budget is opened, and may be proceeded with on that day as though it were a Tuesday or a Wednesday.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Motion No. 5? Not moved.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The motion on the Order Paper is
That the Bill be considered upon this day six months.
If my hon. Friends and I are to be honest we will admit that our reason for tabling that motion is that we do not want the Bill to be considered further. It is our contention that the House should not be considering it at all. Hon. Members may recall that it was given its Second Reading on 6 June 1989 and that on that occasion all the comments were undoubtedly to the effect that it should not be allowed to make any further progress. Unfortunately, as always, the vote that followed a lengthy and well-informed debate was carried largely by those who had neither listened to the debate nor knew anything whatsoever about the subject.
It is a matter for great regret that we are back in the House considering the Bill further. As a piece of legislation it is fundamentally flawed. It tramples on ancient and well-established rights. It attempts to take from Havering borough council rights which were established by royal writ and which it has enjoyed, uninterrupted, for over 700 years. I understand that the charter markets in the constituencies of 284 hon. Members may be similarly affected if the Bill is successful. It will undoubtedly set a precedent for the challenging of ancient market rights through the private Bill procedure. I submit that that should not be allowed or encouraged.
I want to draw attention to a statement, copies of which I understand the promoters of the Bill sent to all hon. Members. I want to go through the statement paragraph by paragraph and explain why I consider that it is misleading in respect of a number of issues. Of course, I accept that it was not the promoters' intention to mislead hon. Members.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the concern of many authorities in whose areas there are charter markets. Does the document to which he is referring really deal with that matter? I am sure that everyone recognises that that is the particular concern about the procedure that has been used throughout. It is my impression that the document avoids that issue. Certainly it does not deal with it in great detail.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I go through the document it will be clear that that whole issue is not mentioned. Anyone reading the document would get the impression that this was a simple matter between Redbridge and Havering councils alone, with no deeper meaning, and capable of no wider interpretation.
In paragraph 1 the promoters say:
The Bill is promoted by the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge…It would authorise the establishment of a market on a site near the town centre of Ilford." 
Paragraph 2 says:
The council in 1980 adopted, following a long public local inquiry, a Local Plan for the Ilford Town Centre entitled the 'Ilford Town Centre Action Area plan'…In accordance with the proposals contained in that Plan the Council has brought about the revitalisation of the Ilford Town Centre by

the construction of a relief road diverting the A118 around the Town Centre, providing service roads and the pedestrianisation of part of the High Road.
No doubt hon. Members will wish to join me in congratulating the Ilford council on doing so and will wish it every success in its endeavours to create a pleasant environment and a good shopping centre. It is, however, my experience of shopping centres around the country that they are not made very much more environmentally attractive if market stalls are placed right in the centre of them. But, so far as any planning permission application is concerned, that may be a matter for Ilford borough council to decide.
In paragraph 3 the promoters continue:
A pleasant environment for residents, workers and shoppers has been created in the Ilford Town Centre. This has led to considerable investment in the Town Centre and the Prudential Corporation and the Norwich Union Insurance Group are currently creating a £100 million retail development, known as the 'Exchange at Ilford', which will provide 51,000 square metres of new shopping floorspace together with a 1,200-space car park.
Again I say to the hon. Members for that area that that is marvellous, but, with this wonderful shopping centre, I cannot believe that the addition of about 80 market stalls will make or break the Ilford plan.
Then we come to more contentious matters. In paragraph 4 Ilford borough council says:
The Plan proposed the development of one site in the Ilford Town Centre for 'substantial shopping development, combined with an expanded and more attractive covered retail market which could be a vital feature of the improved shopping centre'. Since the adoption of the Plan some 250 persons have indicated a desire to trade as stallholders in the Ilford Town Centre. The Council are of the opinion that a market established on the proposed site which it owns at the Ilford Town Centre would provide an additional and attractive facility for shoppers which will complement the 'Exchange at Ilford' development. The Council has the support in this matter of the Redbridge Chamber of Trade and Commerce, the Ilford Trader Association and both the Prudential Corporation and the Norwich Union Insurance Group.

Mr. Robin Squire: Does my hon. Friend have any information about the support that the proposal has within the council itself? Is the council united on it?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend on that matter. However, an intervention from one of the hon. Members for Ilford might assist us. If either of them gets an opportunity to speak in this debate perhaps he will be able to deal with the point.
The question that I should particularly like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), because I asked it on Second Reading and have not yet had a reply, is whether he or his council know how many of the 250 persons who have stated their desire to trade at Ilford already trade at Havering. That seems an extremely pertinent point. If all that the Bill succeeds in doing is to remove some 250 stallholders—or thereabouts—from Havering five and a half miles across to Redbridge, I cannot believe that it will be vastly in the interests of the population of either of our two boroughs, or of anybody else who lives anywhere near the vicinity.
With the ease of travel that we have today, there can be no doubt that many Redbridge residents shop in Romford and enjoy the facilities of the Romford market, which has been established for so long. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will recall that I said that ease of travel must go against the promoters of the Bill, whereas


they were praying it in aid as a reason for allowing a proliferation of markets. In fact, it does nothing of the kind. The fact that people can now travel with substantial ease for considerable distances to do their shopping must be an argument against allowing too many market centres to spring up.
The whole pattern of trading in this country is moving towards people shopping in one place for everything that they wish to buy—at one time and in one place. Indeed, they often drive substantial distances to do so. My constituency has been suffering for some time because of some of the out-of-town supermarkets that are now being developed all around the country. People get into their cars and often drive happily for 10 or 15 miles to get to one of those places to do their shopping, and then return home. Our shopping centres and the centres of our towns are already under substantial threat. In my opinion, a proliferation of market centres, as proposed by the Bill, would undermine the security of the shopping centres in middle-of-town developments and would not be at all helpful. If Ilford manages to get the House's permission to proceed with the Bill, it may well live to regret it.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should be grateful if he would deal with my point about where the 250 traders who have been applying to him and to his council for a place in the new proposed development come from. I very much hope that the sponsors have taken the trouble to do that research because they will be doing Havering borough council and the House less than justice if, seven months after that point was first raised, they still cannot give us an answer.
I continue with the promoters' letter. Paragraph 5 states:
Planning permission will be sought for the establishment of the market if the Bill is enacted.
I ask the House to pay particular attention to paragraph 6 because it is wholly misleading and gives an impression that is quite different from that reflected by the facts, and probably quite different from that which the promoters intended to give. I shall read it before commenting. It states:
The law of markets provides a protection for any existing market franchise against another, competing, market being established within 6⅔ miles. The London Borough Council of Havering has, it is understood, two markets at Romford which are within that distance, and it would be in contravention of the protection to establish the proposed market at Ilford. The London Borough Council of Havering also has a third market at Romford operated by them in the exercise of their powers under Part III of the Food Act 1984. If the Council established a market pursuant to that power it would not be in contravention of the protection afforded by that Act although it would not be immune from challenge, under common law, from a franchise market. The Romford Markets contain approximately 600 pitches each and they are held on different days (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday).
That is not an accurate reflection of the position in Havering at Romford market. There is one market site in Romford. It does, indeed, have 600 or so pitches, but to give or attempt to give the impression that there are three separate market sites is wholly misleading and has certainly misled some of my hon. Friends to whom I have been speaking. One of my hon. Friends, to whom I was speaking a couple of moments ago, and who I had hoped would support my motion, said that he had read the document and, having seen paragraph 6, felt that Ilford borough council had a good point. He suggested that Havering was being extremely mean, having three existing

markets, to wish to deny Ilford a smaller one five and half miles away. But that is not true. Romford has one marketplace. It holds three markets in that one marketplace on three different days. That is not at all the same thing as the impression that has been given in the document.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): May I ask for further clarification on that point? Do I take it that the three days on which the market is held in Ilford are referred to in the document submitted to support the Bill as three markets? Furthermore, do I take it that the market at Ilford, with its 600 stalls, is an open market?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, yes, it is an open market. In answer to his first point, again yes, there is one position of 600 pitches, but the three markets referred to are the three different days on which a market is held on that site. My understanding is that quite a lot of those pitches are occupied by the same stallholders over the three days. To refer to that as three separate markets and to give the distinct impression that there are three markets in different places, each with 600 pitches, is wholly misleading. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South would like to intervene, I am sure that he would agree that that statement does not reflect the true position and I hope that it did not intend to convey the impression that it undoubtedly does.

Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North): Is it true to say that the same stallholders are involved on each of the three days? Does none of the stalls vary?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend must have misheard me. I did not say that. I said that the market is held on one site of 600 pitches. There are three markets. The reason for the confusion is that the markets are set up under different rights. I believe that one was originally set up under the writ, one under an Act and one because of long practice. Therefore, it is technically correct to say that they constitute three different markets—I do not argue with that—but the impression given in the document that three separate markets are operating is wrong. There is one marketplace at which the same 600 pitches are used three times a week, to constitute three markets.
In specific answer to my hon. Friend's question, although the market is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) as I understand it, some stallholders are there two days a week and others are there three days a week. Many are there only one day a week. Therefore, it is a balance and a mix. I am not saying that the same people are there every day; I am saying that we cannot multiply 600 by three and come to 1,800 traders using the market, because that would be equally misleading.

Mr. Bendall: Will my hon. Friend further clarify the number of people who hold licences in the market?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry; my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) was whispering in my ear and I could not quite catch my hon. Friend's question. Will he repeat it?

Mr. Bendall: Yes. I wondered how many people actually hold licences at Romford market.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question because I do not know. However, I can probably find out before the end of the evening if my hon. Friend wishes me to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford is present in the Chamber, but unfortunately is barred from taking part in the debate because he is a Minister. I know that the fact that he is barred is as much a matter of regret to him as it is to me and, I am sure, to the rest of the House, because what he would have said, had he been allowed to say it, would have proved invaluable to the debate. I am afraid that I shall have to do my poor best to fill in the gaps that he cannot fill himself.
Paragraph 7 of the document states:
Havering Borough Council petitioned against the Bill, and the issues between the two Councils were dealt with by a Committee of your Honourable House. Evidence was brought by the two parties and the Committee decided on a compromise, whereby the Bill was allowed to proceed but certain amendments were made for the benefit of Havering Borough Council, including special provision for compensation.
That is true and I do not dispute that that is exactly what happened. However, I make two points on it. First, although Havering borough council was pleased to be able to get some concessions out of Ilford council, which have certainly assisted our position as I shall show a little later, it did not accept that the Bill should be proceeded with at all; nor did it ever give the impression that it was supportive of it. The fact is that Havering borough council will be damaged by the passing of the Bill, as will the 284 other constituencies that I have already mentioned. The principle that charter markets have a right to operate unchallenged will be grievously breached if the Bill proceeds through the House. That would not be a good thing.
The impression given by paragraph 7, as I read it, is that Havering borough council and Ilford have now made friends and are happy to proceed with the Bill as it is now constituted. That is not true. Havering borough council is happier with the terms than it was but it is not happy with the way in which the Bill is proceeding or that it should proceed at all.
My second point on paragraph 7 is extremely relevant to our proceedings tonight. The Chair will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the House is by no means bound by any agreement reached in Committee and that any decisions reached by the Committee are subject to the approval of the House and to Parliament as a whole. Therefore, we are not bound to accept any compromise that may have been reached in Committee. I do not argue with the decisions made by the Committee. They improve the Bill rather than damage it and improve the position of Havering borough council. But it is important to stress that if people differ from the view of the Committee, they are entitled to make their point and, if necessary, force the matter to a Division.
I have dealt with the promoters' outline of the case. I believe that it was misleading. I hope that my hon. Friends who have read it will also have taken the trouble to read the Second Reading debate where they will find a much truer account of what is behind the Bill and its implications. I know that they probably have not done so, and I regret that it is unlikely that we shall obtain the support that we should have been obtained if they fully understood the matter.
Having read the promoters' letter, some of my hon. Friends must wonder why Havering borough council persists in opposing the Bill. Before I deal with that, I should like to give the promoters credit for the concessions that they have made. Specifically, I draw the attention of the House to the concession on compensation. On Second Reading I and other hon. Members spoke about compensation. The original proposal was outrageously inadequate. I should not do justice to the subject if I did not refer to the original clause to enable us better to understand the changes that have been made in Committee.
Originally, compensation was dealt with in clause 4(2) and (3). It read:
The measure of compensation shall be the capitalised value of the estimated loss of income to the claimant from persons trading at his market resulting from the continuance or establishment of a market under this Act.
Compensation under this Section shall carry interest from the expiry of six weeks from the date on which the claim was received by the Council.
Except as otherwise agreed by the Council, compensation under this Section shall not be payable except upon a claim made in writing to the Council within three months of the commencement of this Act.
It was most unfortunate that the Bill was allowed to reach Second Reading containing such a clause. I do not want to labour the point that I made on Second Reading but the compensation provision was absurd. People would have had to put in a claim for compensation before the market at Ilford had opened. The idea that a proper assessment of the resulting loss could have been made at that stage was absurd. It was wrong to ask the House to consider the Bill in that form.
I am glad to say that the position is now better. Compensation under clause 4 has been substantially improved. Clause 4(2)(a) says:
The measure of compensation shall be—

(i) in the case of the Council of the London Borough of Havering or the owner from time to time of the right to hold Romford Market, in each year ten per cent. of the net profit accruing to any person holding a market under this Act (`the market operator') from that market measured by deducting from the market operator's turnover relating to the market (exclusive of Value Added Tax) any expenses defrayed by the market operator which are wholly and exclusively attributable to the market and not being—


(A) any payment (whether by way of rent or otherwise) made by the market operator to the Council for the right to hold the market; or
(B) in the nature of capital expenses written off to revenue; or
(c) any payment in respect of the compensation or interest payable under this section; or
(D) taxation; or
(ii) in any other case the capitalised value of the estimated loss of income to the claimant from persons trading at his market."

To summarise the difference, Havering council, which previously was not to be compensated, will now receive a 10 per cent. return from the revenue gained by traders who open their market stalls at Ilford. That is of substantial assistance to Havering borough council. I applaud the inclusion of that compensation in the Bill.
The compensation available to those who trade at Romford has also been improved. It is in much the same form as in the original Bill except that it will now be payable under clause 4(3)(b):


Except as may otherwise be agreed by the Council, compensation under subsection (2)(a)(ii) above shall not be payable except upon a claim made in writing to the Council within 24 months from the market commencement date".
That is much more satisfactory. First, we have a two-year period in which to assess the damage and, secondly, and more important, it will not commence until after the market is opened. At least now we shall have a period during which properly to assess the loss to those trading at Romford.
I do not know—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) can assist the House—how the assessment can be made while people are trading both at Romford and Ilford. Perhaps consideration should be given to that. There must be a computation to assess the changes made in those circumstances or, indeed, if someone moves his stall from Romford to Ilford. No doubt that will come up again later in the debate.
Havering borough council objects to the Bill for two reasons. I have already mentioned the first. The second is that the Bill goes against the way in which legislation should be amended. It is wrong that the position of charter markets, which exist not only in my constituency but at 284 other sites, should be eaten away piecemeal by private Bills.
On only one previous occasion has the position been changed. That was at Bexley and in that case it was done by agreement between two councils. There was no conflict or dispute. No one came to the House and attempted to take away the rights enjoyed by a borough without that borough's consent. I can see no objection to a private Bill if both parties agree to it, even when ancient rights are being subjugated by Acts of Parliament. But when there is a conflict, when the borough that is to be penalised does not consent, and when there is a substantial difference between the two parties, as in this case, it is wrong for the private Bill procedure to be used to make a fundamental change in the application of the law of the land.
A Royal Commission looked at the position of charter markets 98 years ago. It concluded that they should be altered. It said that it should he possible to create more markets within areas covered by the charter market rights. It said that the whole system should be considered and changed by Parliament. That was 98 years ago and nothing has been done.
If successive Governments believed that charter markets should be abolished and that a change should be made, it should have been done by Parliament. A Bill should have been brought before the House and debated. We could have gone to the root of the matter and decided whether it was right that ancient rights such as those enjoyed by Havering council should be abolished and whether we should operate a different system. That would be quite legitimate. But to accept the system and not to act on the proposals of the Royal Commission for nearly a century and then to come to the House again and again to erode the position of the charter markets that each borough has enjoyed is not the way in which private Bills should be used. They should not be used to further the interests of one borough or another. For that reason, I hope that the House will join us in wishing to defer consideration of the Bill for a further six months.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). I have read the Second Reading debate in Hansard, but my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that my interpretation of it is different from his. On that occasion, the Division truly reflected the arguments that had been advanced.
My hon. Friend has made a number of points and I shall not detain the House by re-reading the statement because he has done so for me. I shall attempt to address some of the points that he has made and, if there are further questions, I shall do my best, with the leave of the House, to answer those later.
My hon. Friend asked about the 250 applicants for the 80 spaces in the proposed Redbridge market. He cannot have much experience of market traders or he would appreciate that they are anxious to retain some sense of anonymity and they do not always want to disclose exactly what business interests they have elsewhere. When they apply for a stall they are, as a rule, unwilling to say what other stalls they have and where they are located. Therefore, keeping accurate statistics of how many stalls each trader has is not practical. If my hon. Friend consults his local authority, he will find that it does not have an accurate record of the 600 stallholders in its market.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall check to see whether my local authority has such information. However, the situation is slightly different in a market that has been established for a long time compared with one that is being established now. Presumably, Ilford council will license the market holders and apply some sort of criteria to determine whether somebody is a fit and proper person to have a stall. What criteria is the local authority to apply other than whether people have been trading elsewhere, whether they have a criminal past and other necessary information?

Mr. Thorne: The local authority will make inquiries about the desirability of each applicant, but it will not necessarily be able to discover the business interests in other markets of other members of an applicant's family. My hon. Friend will find that Romford market has many more than 600 stallholders as it meets three days a week and, by his own admission, some stallholders have more than one stall and some go only once a week. It will not be possible to discover exactly what other business interests those stallholders have.

Mr. Bendall: Is my hon. Friend aware that many stallholders go to many markets around London? They could be at Bexley on Monday, Bromley on Tuesday and Romford on Wednesday.

Mr. Thorne: Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster does himself and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) an injustice in suggesting that Romford market is likely to empty out into Ilford. I have no such fear. Redbridge is asking for an 80-stall market and there is no way that that could absorb the 600-stall market that is enjoyed at Havering.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not want to give the impression that Redbridge will empty Romford of stalls. It will do nothing of the kind. The limit of 80 stalls has been heavily negotiated and it was not present on Second


Reading. But even though it will not empty Romford, it will damage it. If I am right that many stallholders who will attend Redbridge come from Romford and so will move, that will undoubtedly have an impact on Romford market, quite apart from taking a lot of the clientele.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is taking a pessimistic view. These markets are popular and there is no reason why Romford should suffer any great loss. I have patronised Romford market for many years. I have visited it since I was a schoolboy and my impression is one of a vibrant market. In days gone by one of its main purposes, if not the main purpose, was as a cattle market. That is the reason for the limit of six and two thirds miles. That was considered to be one third of the distance that cattle could be driven in a working day. That allowed them one third of the day to get the cattle to the market, one third of the day for them to be at the market on sale, and another third of the day for them to be driven back. That is rather out of date and in this day and age one should be working on an entirely different basis.

Mr. O'Brien: Has there been any contact with the National Market Traders Federation which has a code of practice for establishing markets and deciding who shall operate in them? The point about 250 applicants is relevant. Does Redbridge intend to obtain permission for the market and then hand it on to a third party who will operate it as a private market?

Mr. Thorne: As far as I am aware, Redbridge has not yet decided whether it wants to operate the market itself or to pass responsibility for it to a private operator. That decision will be taken if Redbridge attains an Act of Parliament to implement it. The National Market Traders Federation has been in touch with all Members of Parliament and I understand that it has also been in touch with the local authority. How far the discussions have gone, I do not know. However, it is not a regulatory body, rather a membership body, so it does not have any rights of control or nomination as to which traders are suitable. There is a significant difference. On that basis, the advice that it can give is somewhat limited.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend accurately said that the limit of six and two thirds miles went back to Roman times but that we had come a long way since then and were due for a change. That may or may not be so. We may be due for a change but, if anything, there would be less loyalty to a particular market today because of the speed of communications. Therefore, it could be argued that the limit needs to be tightened, not loosened.

Mr. Thorne: If we went down that road we would argue that no new supermarkets or any other form of trade should be opened. That is not the line that I would take. There should be the maximum possible choice for shoppers to shop as and when they wish, where they wish.
The figure of six and two thirds is out of date. Another figure would be more appropriate in this day and age. As has been said, it would be quite appropriate for people to complete their shopping in one area. If there is a good shopping centre in Romford and shopping is not confined to the street market, the people who go there to shop will be loyal to that particular shopping area. They can do their market shopping and also their under-cover shopping in

department stores and elsewhere. That is what other people would like to do in other areas. It is right and proper that they should be able to do so. If people wanted to go for keenly priced goods, clearly they would want to go to a market with a large number of stalls. One with 600 stalls would be much more attractive than one with 80. An 80-stall market should not and cannot be a threat.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In their preamble, which I covered at some length, the promoters described Romford market as three markets. As I understand the Bill, in the same equation, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is asking for six markets. He is not asking for 80 stalls but six times 80 because, under the terms of the proposed Act, they are able to open six days a week.

Mr. Thorne: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. The description of Romford market as three markets reflects the fact that there are three entirely different markets. One was set up by ancient charter, one by a lost prescription of grant and one by the Food Act 1984. That is how the three separate markets were created. They may be on the same site, but anything done in Redbridge would come under the Food Act and would, therefore, be one market.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry to intervene again but I must pursue that. Is not my hon. Friend merely being semantic? He says that there will be three separate markets on three days. I accept that, technically, they are three separate markets because they were set up under three separate Acts. However, in reality, the stalls are open three days a week. If my hon. Friend succeeds, in his area 80 stalls will be open six days a week. There will not be 80 stalls but 80 times six and, therefore, the threat to Romford is much greater than the impression that my hon. Friend seeks to give.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend has not really researched his local authority's decisions on this matter. Otherwise, he would appreciate that it could apply for markets to be opened on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday as well and could therefore have the other three days under the Food Act if it so wished.
If Romford market were open only under the Food Act, it would have been referred to as one market and would not have had the protection of the six and two thirds miles. Therefore, Redbridge borough council need not have applied to the House for this Act. There is no inconsistency in my argument. The likelihood of 80 stallholders turning up in Redbridge on Monday and Tuesday but not wanting to turn up in Havering is remote.

Mr. Bendall: Will my hon. Friend clarify this point? As I understand it, the six and two thirds miles relates to the charter that granted the cattle market. Is there still a cattle market at Romford?

Mr. Thorne: No, the cattle markets at Romford and Stratford were phased out many years ago. There have not been cattle markets there, to my knowledge, for perhaps 15 or 20 years, or even longer. That is another reason why the figure of six and two thirds is irrelevant.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is important to clarify this matter, as it is deeply significant. If the Bill goes through in its present form, Redbridge borough council will have the right to open 80 stalls, six days a week with 80 different


stallholders on each day. In other words, 480 stallholders will be able to operate in Redbridge from Monday to Saturday. Am I right or wrong?

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but, in practice, it is no more likely that 80 stallholders will apply to have a stall in Redbridge on a Monday than would wish to have a stall in Romford on Monday. Stallholders in Romford have not found it profitable to do so on a Monday. Therefore, there is no likelihood that Redbridge market will be open every day of the week. If it were likely to be profitable for a stallholder to do that, Havering authority, on behalf of Romford, would want to hold markets on other days of the week, in addition to the one day a week on which it is allowed to do so at present under the Food Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made two other points which I shall deal with. First, he said that 284 charter markets in the country could be under threat. I entirely disagree. It has been necessary for the London borough of Redbridge to come to the House to ask for a special Act for a market within six and two thirds miles. Where those charter markets are a long way from the next town the problem does not arise and there is no threat. Where there are other major towns nearer than six and two thirds miles, quite rightly those other authorities wishing to open a market would have to come to the House for such authority. Clearly it would be wrong and misleading to give the impression that there was any threat to 284 charter markets.
My hon. Friend also talked about compensation. Naturally, this was revised during the passage of the legislation through the Opposed Private Bill Committee which, in its wisdom, decided how compensation could be calculated. The figure of 10 per cent. of the profit was generous bearing in mind, as my hon. Friend has accepted, that there is a conflict on only two days a week. Therefore, 10 per cent. of the total profit seems extremely generous.
The way in which the calculation was made was put into the original Bill, and it went before the Opposed Private Bill Committee which listened to counsel on both sides at great length over many days. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster criticised colleagues and suggested that if only they had listened to all of the Second Reading debate they would clearly have voted in his favour. I do not agree. But by the same logic, had our colleagues listened for many days to arguments put by counsel, instructed by the two local authorities, surely the House would wish to consider the Bill further. I believe that we should do so tonight.

Mr. William O'Brien: Unlike the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), I believe that there is a danger to the future of established markets if the Bill is allowed to continue in its present form. The danger arises because we shall be dealing piecemeal with an issue that is targeted at markets instead of looking at the position in total. Other authorities, many of which will be influenced by people wanting to develop markets, could follow the same procedure. The very fact that the application by Redbridge has received the attention of the House sets a precedent for future applications.
If we are to be fair and honest in our judgment, we must consider the position of the market traders. They are small business people who often start from nothing and, in many

instances, with hard work and some luck develop businesses that can sustain a living for themselves and their families. Market trading is usually a family affair. The only right of a market trader is if he stands his stall in a franchise market. He then has the right, under common law, to be there provided that there is a space available and that he pays the toll.
Under current law, no organisation can set up a market within six and two thirds miles of an existing franchise market. That protects market traders and small business people. It is true that the distance was set by an historic event, but nevertheless there is an inbuilt protection for market traders. The proposed market in Redbridge would be only a short distance from an existing market, so the long-established principles would be broken and there would be serious problems that would be detrimental to the traders at both the existing market and the proposed Redbridge market.
In an intervention I asked the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) whether there had been any consultation. Although I accept that the market traders' organisation is not a regulatory body, at least it looks after the interests of 25,000 or more market traders.

Mr Bendall: Why did not the Food Act 1984 provide the same protection of six and two thirds miles?

Mr. O'Brien: The Act dealt with different circumstances and different principles in the markets. That is why I began my speech by referring to mismatched and piecemeal legislation. We should be considering the whole of the operation of markets and not piecemeal legislation. The 1984 Act was intended to deal with certain matters, as the legislation before us is intended to deal with other matters. That piecemeal consideration of the issue will continue if we agree to this legislation.
The Bill is not necessarily intended to allow the borough of Redbridge to organise a market itself. The hon. Member for Ilford, South said that it had not yet decided whether it would organise the market or whether that would be handed over to a third party. It would be dangerous for the market traders for Redbridge to request permission for a market and then hand it over to a third party. Those traders have experience at the sharp end of private market operators. I have discussed the matter with people who stand market stalls in my constituency, at Ossett and Normanton, and at Wakefield in the neighbouring constituency. They told me how the private operators bring on to the markets their own traders who already have stalls in other markets that are operated by the privateer. That cuts across some of the sacred principles of market traders. The principles involved in the setting of market stalls should have been more fully considered when the Bill was in Committee.
Another important matter is charges for stalls. Unscrupulous operators have been known to ruin a good market by not operating within the broad principles that relate to markets. The Bill does not encourage good practice and it threatens established procedures. The hon. Member for Ilford, South does not agree, but were he to examine the matter in more depth he could conclude only that the Bill is a danger to established markets because it is piecemeal legislation. Franchise markets are an important part of our heritage. For example, the Pontefract market has operated for hundreds of years and goes back to Saxon times.
If the House agrees to this legislation, the laws on franchise markets will be threatened. Indeed, that threat is targeted on low-income groups because they depend on the markets for reasonable goods at a price they can afford. We must ask why the Bill is even before the House. The market at Romford is less than six miles from the proposed market at Redbridge. There is no real demand for stalls in that area. I note that 250 applications have been made, but there is nothing to show what sort of trade would be carried on by the applicants. I understand that there is no demand and no waiting list for additional stalls in Romford. That market caters for a number of communities in and around the area, including Redbridge. The evidence submitted to the Committee shows that there is no demand for additional market facilities in the area.
In Committee, it was argued that people without cars or access to public transport could not travel to Romford market. If that is a reason for accepting the Bill, what of rural areas? If there is a demand to develop market trading, it is in rural areas where there is a lack of public transport and where fewer people can afford cars. If a reason for accepting the Bill is that people find it difficult to travel six miles to Romford, Conservative Members in particular should be arguing for more market facilities in their constituencies. There is no substance in the argument for an additional market at Redbridge. The same criterion could apply to every rural area and community throughout the country where people are denied the use of public or personal transport.
The letter accompanying the original applications suggests that Redbridge is to be a covered market which will operate six days a week. In my view, that is merely an extension of a shopping development. I suggest that it would be fairer to the local community to make an application for a store comprising 80 stalls, rather than make one under the guise of it being an open market.

Mr. Squire: Has the hon. Gentleman established from his researches if it would make a difference whether such a store had a roof? Is it the concept of open air versus non open air that is in dispute, or do the walls surrounding a store make all the difference?

Mr. O'Brien: The difference would come if the market were handed over to a third party such as Asda, who could develop it not as a market but as a superstore. The difference between the proposed market at Redbridge and the existing one at Romford is that the latter is an established open market, whereas that at Redbridge will be covered. The application is for 80 stalls because it will be a covered market—a supermarket. It is wrong to consider an application for what is ostensibly an open market when it will, in the main, be developed as a supermarket. I hope that we shall receive honest clarification of the real nature of the application.

Mr. Thorne: The proposed site is a car park over which there is a flyover carrying a road over the railway. The site is only covered inasmuch as it is under a flyover.

Mr. O'Brien: My remarks were based on the letter accompanying the application, which refers to a covered market. If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the only cover provided is a flyover, it will be different from what we understand as a covered market.
That is the letter's second misleading statement. The first one was that Romford has three different markets, but the truth is that there is only one market area, comprising the same stalls, but subject to three different Acts of Parliament. For that reason only they are referred to in the supporting letter as three markets, which is most misleading.
I return to my earlier point that, as Redbridge borough council's representatives have given misleading information, the scheme should be more carefully considered. One wonders how many other misleading statements have been made in support of the Bill. I suggest to the Bill's supporters that more consideration should be given before the House agrees to the Bill. The Bill should be deferred so that all the evidence can be analysed properly to see whether it contains any other misleading statements.
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the motion in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and of the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), as that would be in the best interests of the House and of the public.

Mr. Robin Squire: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), and agree strongly with the main thrust of his arguments. To be fair, I must pay tribute also to my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who is bound by Trappist vows on an occasion such as this. One has heard of the strains and frustrations of office. It is arguable that this evening, one of the more acute forms of frustration is being visited upon my hon. Friend. I only hope that the inadequate way in which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) are dealing with the matter will give him some consolation.
I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is a genuine long-term friend. We encounter one another occasionally at local events, and I always treasure his company.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, the royal writ governing Romford market has operated for 742 or 743 years	I forget which. It also covers markets in nearly half of the constituencies represented by right hon. and hon. Members. Those markets are protected by the operation of common law, which is at the very foundation of our rights. The House should consider carefully any application to vary rights that have existed for that length of time before deciding to alter them. In particular, the private Bill procedure is an extraordinary way to vary common law rights. I shall return to that in the ultimate part of my argument.
It is important that I put the precise viewpoint of the London borough of Havering. I do not intend to touch upon the promoters' statement. That would be unfair to the House, as it has already been covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for Ilford, South. It is important that there should be no doubt about the attitude of the London borough of Havering, which is directly affected by the Bill.
I shall quote selectively from a letter from the Havering borough secretary which begins, "Dear Robin"—it is a


very friendly borough, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should like to think that your part of the country is similar. The letter states:
It would be foolish to pretend that the amendments made in Committee do not limit the potential harm to Romford Market from a rival at Ilford. In particular limiting it to not more than 80 stalls on the one identified site is an improvement on the Bill as originally lodged. Nevertheless, the principle remains that Redbridge are using private legislation to override long established Common Law rights … What we put to the committee and suggest is still a sound proposition is that the abolition of rights going back 750 years should not come about as a result of a piecemeal process whereby one piece of private legislation in one area (e.g. Bexley) is succeeded by another (e.g. Redbridge) and so on.
—one might suggest that they are using salami tactics.
The letter continues:
There is no real difference in the circumstances applicable at Romford Market and those applicable at Common Law markets up and down the Country. Conceding the principle in this Bill must therefore make easier the compulsory extinction of other market rights.
That is demonstrated by the fact that the Bexley London Borough Council Act 1987 has been relied on in part as a precedent by Redbridge, although that Act appears to have come about by some agreement between parties.
The letter states:
The compensation provisions in the Bill have been substantially rewritten as a result of the committee hearing.
I shall return to compensation in a moment, as it would not be fair to read out a long letter to the House. However, the letter continues:
It might be helpful to remember that the deposited Bill (i.e. the version we petitioned against) allowed for a market to be established by Redbridge anywhere within a circle of just over 3 square miles, and also allowed Redbridge to authorise the establishment by others of a market within that same area … they could have had two markets unlimited in size and only broadly limited by location.
That is one of the reasons why the original objections were so strongly based.
The amended version in which the council is allowed to establish a market which is limited to not more than 80 stalls on the particular site identified by the signed plan is a considerable change from the original Bill.
The letter concludes:
The petition lodged by Havering in respect of Romford market has produced a transformation in the Bill which it may be thought was unlikely without our opposition."—
there is certainly no reason why it should have been changed.
This emphasises the danger of launching into private legislation to take away established rights of another body and you might think Parliament could still be urged to send Redbridge away to think again about whether they really need powers of this kind.
The letter was signed by the borough secretary and solicitor.
I mentioned that the terms are changed so that the market will consist of 80 stalls on an identified site. I do not know whether 80 is the right figure. The House will note that I have tabled an amendment on the matter.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to the well reported divisions within the majority group on Redbridge council. As a former council leader, I confess that the news that there could be divisions in local authority groups comes as something less than a shattering surprise. I held the job for three years and I would have been surprised to hear that my council was

united about anything—except possibly the name of the local authority, and even then there was probably a rebel fringe moving an amendment.
I recall that it was suggested that up to one third of the majority group had objected to the Bill as originally deposited. We now have a very different Bill which imposes upon the stallholders in the putative market in Redbridge an absolute responsibility to pay sums of money and, as I have already said, it limits the number of stalls.
I do not have to go back very far to remember that quarrels broke out in my council group on far smaller issues. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will comment on whether the revised Bill now has a clear, obvious and unambiguous commitment from Redbridge council, and whether it is aware of the dangers that have been highlighted this evening and recognises that they should take it away and think again, as the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) suggested.
Obviously, Havering welcomes the fact that, although the original Bill would apply compensation to cases where the right was conferred by statute or royal charter, that has now been deleted so that any legitimate claim can be considered. I welcome the fact that the Bill now refers to 10 per cent. of net profit, although I shall return to that in a moment. Originally, all or some of the rights created in the Bill could have been transferred or disposed of, but now no transfer or disposal can take effect without the consent of Redbridge council. None of that could have happened without the original objection, but equally Havering's central objection still remains.
I now refer to an important point on compensation. Clause 4 (b)(i) states:
The Director of Finance of the London Borough of Redbridge, acting as an expert and not as an arbitrator, shall within six months after the end of each financial year of the market's undertaking certify the amount of net profit calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(i) above, and shall send copies of the certificate to the market operator and to the person entitled to receive compensation under that paragraph.
I highlight that for several reasons. I speak as a chartered accountant. I do not usually confess that in public, because it tends to turn people against me—erstwhile friends walk away and decide not to talk to me again—but it means that I have had some experience of drawing up accounts, looking at other people's accounts and, above all, completing accounts from incomplete records.
I freely confess that I have never audited a set of market traders' accounts, but I have carried out the audits of many similar undertakings. I am genuinely concerned about how that will effectively be carried out. Let me make it clear that that is no reflection on the director of finance in the London borough of Redbridge, who I am sure is a well qualified and good representative of the accountancy profession.
Let us think about it for a moment. What evidence will he have for purchases? I doubt whether there will be invoices. My experience of the sort of business undertakings we are talking about strongly suggests that the chances of many invoices being available for the purchases by the market trader are very slight indeed. We shall be relying upon approximations, because much of the business is not accompanied by invoices.

Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend being misled, in that he has not read the Bill? Clause 4(2)(a)(i) contains the words


in each year ten per cent. of the net profit accruing to any person holding a market".
It does not say "market stall": it says "market".

Mr. Squire: If I have got the wrong end of the stick in that respect, perhaps, either now or in winding up, my hon. Friend will clarify the point. In other words, is it a fixed, finite, easily established figure? If it is, I wonder why it is necessary for the director of finance to verify it. If, as I fear, it is not but needs considerable assessment, I am a little concerned.
Since I have presented one side, and a good accountant always tries to present both sides of any case, the obvious other side is the takings. If my theory is right, if the problems of accounting for expenses are there, I judge that the problems of accounting for takings will be even more significant. I suspect that the average inspector of taxes would be the first to agree with that statement. The thought occurs to me that, if the assessment is based on the actual profit of the market traders, presumably it could also be based on their audited accounts, which would have been agreed, so that there would be no great difficulty.
These are major points, because we are talking about compensation. So far, people have said that this is a considerable improvement, and they welcome it as against what was originally proposed. But from where I am standing at the moment, it seems to me that that could be 10 per cent. of very little, which, I need hardly remind the House, is even less. I would appreciate some clarification from the sponsor of the Bill at some appropriate time.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) said that the markets would be in competition for only three days a week, since Redbridge would be doing six days and Havering only three. But is it not true that trading on the three days when Havering traders were in competition would be affected, because people go to a market usually once a week and, if they were able to do so on a different day, that would obviously have an impact within Havering?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman, who is on a Select Committee with me, where we usually discuss matters relating to the environment, has made a very good, clear point. Obviously, there is some limit to the amount of money that people will spend in a particular week or other period, and if they have already spent it in one market, say in Redbridge, they cannot spend it a second time—something that even Governments have learnt over the years.
I want to turn now to a letter from the leader of Redbridge council, John Lovell, who I am sure is a very good Conservative and does a very good job. This letter was addressed not to me but to one of my hon. Friends, and it has come into my possession. I know that it is open to anyone to write to any or all right hon. and hon. Members, but I wonder whether there is any change in this in the private Bill procedure. Very strict procedures are laid down, for instance, requiring the promoters to supply a statement, which has to go to all hon. Members. I am sure that you will confirm that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
A selective statement has been sent out by the leader of Redbridge council, which I have not received. I see that my silent hon. Friend the Member for Romford indicates that he too has not received a copy of this letter, in which case

he may be very surprised at some of the contents. I have no way of knowing how many people have received the letter. Perhaps all other hon. Members present have received it, in which case they may be rather bored if I highlight some of its contents, but it may be that they too have been the victim of the selective amnesia of the leader of Redbridge council. I do not even know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether he managed to include you. We draw a veil over that.
In the third paragraph of his letter, Mr. Lovell writes:
We are obliged to do this because our neighbouring Borough of Havering enjoys the monopoly protection of an ancient Royal Writ which prevents us from affording shoppers in Redbridge the choice they enjoy elsewhere in the country as a matter of right.
The letter could have pointed out the 288 constituencies we have already mentioned, where the same market rights exist. Whether the letter is saying that we should include all the 288 or whether we are only threatening the one is not clear, but the point I want to take up concerns the words "monopoly protection."
What is a monopoly in this context? There are some 300 traders—we have conceded this—who are competing not only among themselves in Romford but also against the shops and stores in Romford. That is scarcely the standard definition of a monopoly. There is a very active retail trade there. If a hypermarket were to be created, since it is unusual to create more than one hypermarket in an area, would that be a monopoly position or would one say that it was competing with other forms of retail trade? I would argue that the word "monopoly" in this case is misused.
The second point about the letter is even more important. It says:
You may also have received correspondence from the National Market Traders Federation seeking support for the Havering case. The allegation that we, as promoters of the Redbridge Bill, are weakening the rights of street traders is far from the truth—Redbridge in effect seeks an expansion of open market trading and it is Havering relying on its ancient and anachronistic Writ, who is denying the freedom of choice and opportunity which Redbridge seeks.
The only comment made about the letter from the National Market Traders Federation is in the quotation about this Bill weakening the rights of street traders. That is the only point picked up in this criticism.
Many people may have had the letter from the federation and lost it or not seen it; or it may not have reached them, because these things happen in this place, and they may think that this was not much of an objection. But if they were to read what the federation said they would find that it was quite a bit more than the leader implies.

Mr. Bendall: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is trying to prove. Clearly, the National Market Traders Federation letter came some time ago. It was totally against. It was lobbying in a fair way, so I do not see why other people should not lobby.

Mr. Squire: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. The act of lobbying is a legitimate and almost ever-present part of the proceedings of the House. He says that the original letter came some time ago. Many hon. Members receiving this letter from the leader of Redbridge council might have thought that the only complaint was about a weakening of the rights of street traders. It goes into considerable detail and quite simply says—I will just read their concluding sentence or two.

Mr. Bendall: I received a letter a few days ago from the National Market Traders Federation asking how I intended to vote and reminding me of its previous letter.

Mr. Squire: My post bag may have been even more selective, because I have not received that letter. It appears that a sustained attack has been launched upon me.
I shall read the concluding part of a letter from the National Market Traders Federation, which says:
The Federation"—
the National Market Traders Federation—
is opposed to the Bill as it believes it would set a dangerous precedent if a Private Bill was allowed to take away common law rights. This could pave the way for another Private Bill that could remove the common law rights of traders, which, with the exception of the few traders who have tenancies, are the only protection that traders have.
The Federation of Street Traders Union—I am delighted to announce to the House that I have received this letter—underlines that message. It says:
Market traders do not enjoy statutory rights, their only rights being derived from common law. They are concerned that the Redbridge Bill is an attack on common law rights of market franchise owners and thus weakens the few rights that market traders have.
If the Bill is a precursor of future legislation, changes will be made in other constituencies. I have the list of the 285 constituencies that are affected, but I do not propose to read out the names of the hon. Members concerned. I note that both Front Bench spokesmen and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have markets in their constituencies. They will therefore be listening intently to the arguments being deployed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who is regarded as all-powerful by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is not present tonight, but he also has a market in his constituency. Most important, given my past, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who might be assumed to be a clear believer in market principles—in this context, I mean the other market principles—represents the attractive and delightful area of Kingston upon Thames, where I had the privilege of being educated. If he were present, he would be listening carefully for any precedent being created to destroy the lovely and cherished market in Kingston.
In 1891, the Royal Commission set up by the then Government recommended the abolition of rules for the protection of market rights. For whatever reason, successive Governments and Parliaments have not seen fit to act on that recommendation. On the contrary, the most recent legislation, the Food Act 1984, expressly preserved the rights of protection against rival markets, even when those rival markets are set up by local authorities under statutory powers.
Why have Governments not seen fit to act on that recommendation? It cannot be because of insufficient time. Have no past Governments been anxious to pursue a market-based economy? I can think of one or two that have. Why have they not introduced legislation? Perhaps it is because of a lack of supply side zeal. Nothing restrained the Government from introducing a Bill on Sunday trading, which was not given a Second Reading. The Government were seeking to tackle what many people regard as an anomaly. Time was found for that legislation, so why could not previous Governments introduce legislation on markets?
We must assume that successive Ministers considered this, because people would have said to them "This is anachronistic, with its rules on six and two thirds miles, and so on." I suspect that the Government said, "Whatever changes we make, we shall face enormous problems of compensation, of measuring the loss that will be suffered by market traders and the benefit will be limited, even if we take the purest free market principles."
What Government and Parliament refused to do. or decided was not necessary, is being accomplished by a series of little Bills. First, there was the Bexley London Borough Council Bill, and now we have the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. That should concern all hon. Members, because it cannot be the way to achieve logical legislation. The salami approach, by which bits of legislation are sliced away, makes no sense. We know from correspondence that such action is unpopular with market traders. If we must make changes, it should he by comprehensive reform in a public Bill, not by private legislation.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I intend to speak only briefly because the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made many of the points that I would have made. I must make it clear that I hold no brief for Havering or Redbridge. I know little about them, so I cannot be biased in favour of one or the other.
There is a principle in the Bill that threatens other charter markets, one of which is in Burnley. The 284 authorities must be concerned about the methods being used to overcome common law. It is not sufficient for the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) to say that there will be other private Bills. Private legislation is not the way to make these changes.
The charter for the market in Burnley was granted in 1264, and for the fair in 1265. Those dates are inscribed on the wall of the council chamber as notable and historic features in the development of the borough. Originally, the market was held on the doorstep of the church. Burnley was not recorded in the Domesday Book, but two centuries later it flourished around the market.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South dismissed the six-and-two-thirds-mile rule. He must recognise that many towns developed that distance apart, or slightly more, so that a market could be established in them. The pattern of development in many parts of this country was controlled indirectly by that early form of town planning. We should not disregard some of our important historic links.
Perhaps we should reconsider the correctness of the six-and-two-thirds-mile separation. If a sensible proposal to change the distance were introduced, I would not necessarily be rigidly opposed to it. But many factors would have to be considered, should such a change he thought necessary, and the implications would involve local people, market traders, authorities with and without markets in their areas and, of course, the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
We have been told that 98 years ago Parliament considered whether a change was necessary to the six-and-two-thirds-mile rule, and apparently it was decided to maintain the status quo. Few of us are likely to be here 98 years from now should further changes he proposed then.
Many authorities have invested in markets in their areas. My local authority invested heavily in the 1960s in the indoor and outdoor markets in the area, and it is intended further to upgrade the outdoor market. Most of the outdoor market is already under cover, mainly because of the weather. My area is close to the Pennines, so we get more rain than areas further south. Genuine worries exist and we should not allow the Bill to proceed in its present form at this stage.
The material put out by the promoters did not deal with the charter conditions and various issues affecting other local authorities. The promoters and Redbridge council must have been aware for some time that such matters have led to the Bill being delayed. I find it surprising. therefore, that they did not address such issues.
Not knowing the areas involved and having read the material as an independent and neutral observer, I envisaged three separate market sites, not three different markets operating on different days on the same site. Whether the material that I read was intentionally misleading I do not know, but most people reading it would have got an incorrect view from what was stated.
It is essential that people, especially hon. Members, should have a thorough understanding of what is proposed. After all, having read it, some hon. Members may have decided not to attend tonight's debate, imagining that Havering has three different markets operating on three different sites, believing that there is no problem.

Mr. Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Members have been known to vote without hearing the balance of the argument and have relied simply on a piece of paper that they have been sent? The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is overwhelmingly valid in a case such as this, when we have a near empty House.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I read what private Bills are about, particularly if they concern an area of the country with which I am not familiar. Many private Bills relate to particular areas and issues, the details of which are not known nationally. There are, in those cases, only two ways for hon. Members to know what is proposed. One is to read the literature put out by the promoters and others who are interested in the matter, and in that case we depend on the information being correct and not misleading, intentionally or inadvertently. The second way is to come into the Chamber and listen to the debate.
Some hon. Members may have been influenced by the literature into thinking that Havering has three different markets operating in different parts of the borough, and have reached a view about the Bill on that basis. Issues of principle are involved here. I wish Redbridge no harm. I would be happy to see most of the Bill proceed and the proposed development and investment take place in that borough. However, I have doubts about certain aspects of the measure. If they remain in the Bill, I shall feel it necessary to oppose its passage at this stage.

Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to some of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned the importance of franchise markets, and I agree with him. But Food Act 1984 markets are important

as well. They have played an important part in our shopping life since being introduced and they are to be encouraged.
The hon. Gentleman referred to low-income groups. Pensioners, who now have bus passes, still prefer to shop locally if they can. If he were to ask his constituents whether they preferred to shop in the vicinity of their homes or catch a bus and travel perhaps five and a half miles, he would find that, especially in later life, they preferred to shop locally. It is the desire of my local authority that they should be able to do so.
There is no intention of excluding the National Market Traders Federation from the site. On the other hand, there is no intention to give them a monopoly over it. I trust that the hon. Member for Normanton was not proposing that such a monopoly should exist. This is not a case for a closed shop.
I have referred previously to the location of the site. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that Romford market has both an open and covered section. Neither Asda nor any other group has taken over the covered section of Romford market. This is often called "Rumford" market, which 1 believe is an old and original spelling of the word "Romford".
The hon. Member for Normanton also underrates my local authority and our colleagues on the Opposed Private Bill Committee because they certainly would not allow a situation to arise where a private contractor was able to introduce only his friends and colleagues into the market. I assure him that the London borough of Redbridge would be most assiduous in ensuring that it was kept open to all respectable people and that in any contract entered into by an operator—if that were the way in which it was proposed to operate the market—it would make sure that to do otherwise would be a breach of the contract, which would thereby be terminated. I have no hesitation in believing that that would not be allowed to happen. Our colleagues considered the matter in some detail; they were advised by counsel who were instructed by both the councils involved, and they were a good judge of the ultimate result.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on his speech. He said that his friends tended to ostracise him when they learned that he was a chartered accountant. That could, of course, be the reason why he does not receive as much correspondence as the rest of us. He must have been struck off the lists that give us so much correspondence from the National Market Traders Federation and others on this issue. I am sorry that he was left out, but he has only to ask and he will always be kept fully informed.
I want especially to pick up one of my hon. Friend's points. There have been Bills before the House to vary the distance of six and two thirds miles and that is the right way to proceed. I do not believe that a blanket cover is necessarily the right answer. Each case should be dealt with on its merits, as has happened in this case.
Negotiation is a matter on which two parties must agree. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch is aware of this, but I have tried hard to encourage negotiations to take place between his local authority and mine, and I have not been as successful as I should have wished. I have even pursued the point that the negotiations should take place in front of the six Members of Parliament involved, with the leaders and chief officers of the two authorities. Unfortunately, that suggestion has been turned down.

Mr. Squire: I did not make the point clear when I read the letter from my own borough secretary because I did not want to take up too much time. I must now make it clear that my borough secretary confirmed that an informal approach had been made, but, as he put it, as the purpose of the discussion would in no way reduce ultimately the presence of the Bill—and it is the principle to which Havering objects—no discussion took place.

Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is important that people try to get together in these matters and to resolve issues, because if that had been done at an earlier stage the defects that my hon. Friend saw in the Bill on Second Reading might have been overcome before the matter ever arrived in the House. Many of the corrections that have now been made would have been ironed out before the Bill arrived in the House.—if it ever arrived at all. My local authority is not wholly to blame for the changes that have taken place—quite properly—as a result of the deliberations in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. We have already covered the question of the number of markets, so I shall not say more on that point.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) raised an important point—

Mr. Squire: I am making the assumption that my hon. Friend has disposed of my argument. I hope that before he finishes he will tackle the question that I raised briefly about the measurement of profit and whether we are talking about market traders or someone else.

Mr. Thorne: I dealt with that point at the time and said to my hon. Friend that I felt that he was confusing the market operator with the market trader. We are, of course, talking about the profit to the market operator and that is the basis on which profit is to be calculated. It would not be difficult for a competent accountant to calculate that. It is a question of calculating the number of rents that have been received in a year, and the number of outgoings for the management and the running of the market. That would be relatively easy and straightforward, and it would not require many qualified people to cover it. I have every confidence that the right figure will be produced at the right time without too much difficulty. The Bill also provides for interest on late payments, so that matter has been covered. There is no point in any delay and I am sure that none will ensue.
The hon. Member for Burnley raised some interesting points, especially on the historical side. I was grateful to him for the way in which he described how various towns had been built six and two thirds miles apart, probably on the road from London to York. Eventually, through horrible ribbon development, they may have been joined up. Perhaps they are attractive towns or cities now with one franchise market at each end of the high street.
He also raised the question of substantial investment. If the market is to be successful, it must have major investment. It is no good any more doing these things on a shoestring. A piece of wood on a couple of wheels is no longer adequate. One has to produce something far more attractive to attract the customers to the stall.
We need to consider how frequently these markets take place nowadays, and whether that requires an overall view or whether the matter should be dealt with individually on its merits. Hon. Members have said that a change was last suggested about 90 years ago. My local authority would

not want to wait 90 years for an answer. That is why it wants to pursue the matter now. This is not the first time that this has happened. There have been others—Bexley and so on—where reasonable agreements have been reached. That is perhaps the way that the public would wish the matter to be pursued so that it is properly considered.
It is not an inexpensive operation to bring a private Bill here. Counsel and others have to be instructed. It will not be done quickly or on the cheap. The Opposed Private Bill Committee, which comprises two Opposition Members and two Conservative Members, with an Opposition Chairman, investigated the matter thoroughly from every angle, instructed by counsel on behalf of the two councils. Therefore, I believe that we should accept what our colleagues have recommended to the House and that the Bill should proceed to consideration.

Question put, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered:—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 24.

Division No. 63]
[9.06 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Kilfedder, James


Arbuthnot, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Beith, A. J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Bendall, Vivian
Maclean, David


Boswell, Tim
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI'T's)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Page, Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Riddick, Graham


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fearn, Ronald
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Summerson, Hugo


Fookes, Dame Janet
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Forth, Eric
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Thorne, Neil


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hague, William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Harris, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Hawkins, Christopher
Wilshire, David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wood, Timothy


Irvine, Michael



Jack, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janman, Tim
Mr. Jacques Arnold and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Nicholas Bennett.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Neubert, Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
O'Brien, William


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Snape, Peter


Durant, Tony
Spearing, Nigel


Gill, Christopher
Wareing, Robert N.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wells, Bowen


Gregory, Conal
Wray, Jimmy


Haynes, Frank



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Robin Squire and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Peter Pike.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

Clause 3

ESTABLISHMENT OF MARKET

Mr. Squire: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 13, leave out '80' and insert '50'.
The first thing that I want to bring to the attention of the House is self-evident: that amendments can be moved to private legislation. It may be that some hon. Members were under the impression that it was not so. In recent weeks there has been considerable discussion about this matter in the context of other measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said, it is open to the House on Report to amend what was done in Committee. I stress that hon. Members are not bound by the Bill.
This is a very important amendment. It seeks to reduce from 80 to 50 the number of pitches for which the Bill provides. In a sense, it is a probing amendment. As I was not privy to the Committee's detailed discussions, I have no way of knowing how the figure of 80 was arrived at. Perhaps it was estimated that the total yield from a site of 80 pitches would justify the existence of the market.
Is it perhaps that and a little bit more, which is my own view? Is it considerably more than would be reasonable? Is it perhaps—we had some discussion on this in our previous debate—related to the market traders or to the market owners? Does it emerge from a minimum range of different types of stall? The Bill simply states that there shall be 80 sites, but we have no idea of the mix of those stalls.
Many hon. Members will have markets in their constituencies and will recognise that there is a considerable difference between a market that may be 90 per cent. food and the impact that that has on existing shops or, as in this case, on an existing market, and a market that is more evenly distributed between different types of stall. We do not know the answer in this case. We must guess. What we know is that this is a precedent. As has been said, it is doing what the House and successive Governments for nearly 100 years have refused to do—that is, to change the charter under which markets operate.
That is why 80 looks a large number to me. We are creating a precedent and we should be going more gently. I do not know the size of markets elsewhere. I have no evidence on that and invite hon. Members who have markets in their constituencies to intervene and to give me their view, because I am not sure. We know the size of the Romford market—it has 300 pitches—but at this stage we know nothing more than that 80 is the number that the Bill requires.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There are markets and markets. They are all over the place. There is one called the Common Market, and the hon. Gentleman supports that. He comes here, pottering about and wanting to stop this market because it affects his constituents, yet the Common Market has affected more of his constituents than the Bill ever will. I am here to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and because I am interested in street traders. Indeed, I dealt with that matter the other week on a private Member's Bill. The London Local Authorities Bill will

affect the hon. Gentleman's market as well. It will result in the traders in his market being picked up by local government officials, especially if it is a Tory authority—is it a Tory authority?

Mr. Squire: Most of the authorities in the south-east are Tory.

Mr. Peter Snape: Just say yes.

Mr. Skinner: Well, if that is the case, the hon. Gentleman's traders will be treated just like Lady Porter is treating the Westminster street traders, not a hop, step or a jump from here—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, which is already long. He is trying to tempt the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) to talk about different markets. I am sure that he will not do that.

Mr. Skinner: I am trying to draw a parallel between the London Local Authorities Bill which dealt with 32 London authorities including this area, but not the City of London. That means that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) has a problem not only with this Bill, but one over and above it, and because of the Bill that went through the House the other week. I think that you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for at least part of that debate, so you know the problem. I am simply saying that the hon. Gentleman wants to be absolutely clear because he has a double-edged problem. He should concentrate on that in the next few minutes—or more.

Mr. Squire: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who has, indeed, given me a major and double-edged problem. I seek some support across the Chamber and I sense that a semblance of support is growing. If I were to be distracted—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite rightly say that I should not be—into considering matters relating to another market, clearly I might lose that support as well as antagonising you and that would be double bad news for me.
The hon. Member for Bolsover originally asked me about markets and mentioned what we might term a very common market. I am talking about a very uncommon market because, as the earlier debate showed, we are talking about something that breaks a precedent of over 100 years. Almost half of the right hon. and hon. Members in the House have at least one market town in their constituencies and-or an open market. They must be aware that the provisions of the Bill, which affect only the London boroughs of Redbridge and Havering, could easily be taken to affect every market in the country.
To return to the number of stalls, which is the subject of the amendment, I do not know what the mix of market stalls will be. Nobody knows. All that we know is that the market will be open six days a week and will have 80 pitches. That is an awful lot of trading. Without knowing the impact that the market will have, should we not proceed more cautiously? The amendment that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) have tabled would allow 50 pitches. That would be a more reasonable number. It would still allow a range of goods, food and whatever else the market will specialise in to be sold.
If we are now agreed on the compensation terms, presumably it would cost less in compensation to have 50


pitches, if, as I am led to believe, the market will be profitable. I and several other people who have examined the Bill consider that 80 pitches is excessive. I do not wish to delay the House too long. I suggest that the Bill be amended and the number of pitches reduced to 50.

Mr. Thorne: The figure of 80 was put before the Opposed Private Bill Committee. In its wisdom it decided that that was the right figure. My hon. Friend is entitled to his view, but I am afraid that that was not the view of the Committee. It will be perfectly possible to object to the figure if the Bill proceeds to another place, where it will also be examined by a Committee. The Committee of this House believed that the figure of 80 was right. I believe that was the correct decision.

Mr. Squire: The House deserves a little more explanation of how the figure was arrived at. I can only put some of the questions about it. It is important that the House is aware of the reasoning behind the decision of the Committee. We should not simply accept it.

Mr. Thorne: The figure of 80 was arrived at in the same way as the figure of 600 was arrived at for Romford. It was decided to have 600 pitches at Romford because that was the number of stalls that could be fitted into the market when the cattle market was taken away. The figure of 80 at Redbridge is the number of stalls that can be fitted on to the site that I described previously.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 44.

Division No. 64]
[9.27 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Nellist, Dave


Beith, A. J.
Neubert, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wells, Bowen


Gregory, Conal



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Irvine, Michael
Mr. Robin Squire and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Dennis Skinner


Meale, Alan





NOES


Amess, David
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Kilfedder, James


Baker. Nicholas (Dorset N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bendall, Vivian
Lawrence, Ivan


Boswell, Tim
Maclean, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Page, Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Paice, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Summerson, Hugo


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Cormack, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Durant, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Fearn, Ronald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Neil


Fookes, Dame Janet
Thurnham, Peter


Forth, Eric
Widdecombe, Ann


Fox, Sir Marcus
Wilshire, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Wood, Timothy


Hague, William



Harris, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hawkins, Christopher
Mr Nicholas Bennett and


Jack, Michael
Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Squire: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
'(2) A market established under this section may be held on such days of the week as the Council may determine, including Sunday.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 18, at end insert
`save that the market shall not be held on more than two days a week'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert
'save that the market shall not be held on more than one day a week'.

Mr. Squire: I feel rather like a one-man band because of the unavoidable departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor)—who began our opposition to the Bill in such a distinguished manner—and the continuing required silence of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) because he is a member of the Treasury Bench.
I remind the House and any new arrivals that the markets in Havering impose a duty upon me, as a residual Member for Havering, to put the arguments. These key amendments are intended to determine precisely on how many and on which days of the week the proposed new market in Redbridge will open.

Mr. Skinner: Thursday is no good.

Mr. Squire: Is the hon. Gentleman basing his remark on attendance in this House on a Thursday?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is talking about markets being profitable. If he compares attendance at the markets on a Thursday with attendance in this House on a Thursday, it is obvious that Thursday is not the day to have a market. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) who opposed the Bill. He has gone. The hon. Gentleman then mentioned somebody else who has also pottered off. He said that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) could not speak because he is a Minister. It is just like Fred Karno's army. All the troops have left the hon. Gentleman. I could mention someone else, but I will not.
What kind of outfit does the hon. Gentleman have? If he is going to carry on he must get his troops together. We have got our people. The hon. Gentleman has lost his little army. They have probably gone to the market and are setting up stalls. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is opposing the Bill, but his troops could be playing a double hand. They could be putting up stalls ready for a Friday market. He cannot trust people in this place because there is all sorts of moonlighting. I would not put it past Tory Members to be making money on the side in that market. The hon. Gentleman should investigate that.

Mr. Squire: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. However, in all fairness I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford is not missing. He is present, but the rules of the House deny him the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Alan Meale: Why?

Mr. Squire: That is a separate point about the legislature.
I confess immediately that one of the difficulties of having been in this place for only just over 10 years is that I have never taken part in the sort of activities for which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has become a household name. However, I am learning.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes a serious point. There are a number of absentees from the Chamber tonight. I want an assurance from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is not already setting up a stall in Redbridge market and making another £200,000 per year. I feel sure that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House would regard it as an outrage for a right hon. Member to receive a salary of £26,000 a year after a 10 per cent. pay increase, and another £200,000 by moonlighting, when ambulance men cannot get a 10 per cent. pay rise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) said that he was learning, and he should not be seduced from moving his amendment.

Mr. Squire: I did not realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was going that way. I shall not comment on it.
The hon. Member for Bolsover also spoke of absent right hon. and hon. Members. If one adds together the votes in the last Division, they amount to a large figure. Perhaps it would be invidious to inquire why a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are not in the Chamber.
Amendment No. 2 tackles head-on why Redbridge market should not open on Sunday. In the proceedings of the past hour or two, I have detected a certain flavour or—

Mr. Cryer: Nuance?

Mr. Squire: Nuance is a good word. There has been a certain free market approach from some of my hon. Friends in particular, who implied that the Bill's purpose is to do away with cobwebbed, dusty, outmoded and outdated legislation—yet they stop short of incorporating in the legislation the very provision that would reflect their belief in a totally free and unregulated market. I refer to the market's right to open on Sunday.
We should probe behind the Bill to establish why the market will not do so. Some Opposition Members may hold strong views about Sunday trading, and may have expressed them on previous occasions. However, even they might agree that legislation that purports to be a free market, one-off measure should include the right of the market to open on Sunday—when it would not compete with the one at Romford, and which would allow people to buy all the things that they want on Sunday.
Presumably the market's traders and operators want it to be successful and profitable. Instead of being open for only six days a week, it could be open for seven. Alternatively, the six days could include Sunday, so that the number of days stipulated in the Bill would remain unchanged. Either way, profitability would be increased.

Mr. Meale: The real reason is that had Sunday opening been included in the Bill, there is little likelihood that the Government would have supported it. Another reason is the risk of provoking a revolt on the Conservative Benches because of the church and shop lobbies.
Perhaps another reason is that the Government, having got themselves in such a turmoil over the ambulance dispute, which has caused such disquiet among the public—most of whom are totally against the attitude adopted by the Secretary of State for Health—and having created so much furore after giving a heck of a lot of money to their friends in the City, and in respect of many other industrial matters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks in any way to the amendment.

Mr. Squire: You can rest assured that I shall resist the temptation to respond to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, at the start of his intervention the hon. Gentleman made a very good point when he referred to what happened a few years ago when the House last had the opportunity to discuss Sunday trading. It is arguable that since then a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House might have changed their minds. In a number of local authorities the key point has been whether people who break the law on Sunday trading should be prosecuted.

Mr. Meale: To return to the point about Sunday trading, the Sunday Sports Bill attempted to change the legislation to legalise sporting activities on Sundays. That failed abysmally because hon. Members on both sides of the House argued and campaigned against it. The promoters of the Bill and the Government were worried about that happening again.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman helps the discussion on the amendment.
The argument on Sunday trading may have shifted substantially. Many local authorities complain because they do not know what the law is at present. They want clarification and they are not getting it. Many of us are being contacted by constituents either saying that they want the opportunity to go shopping on Sunday and buy a three-piece lawnmower or whatever, or asking why the council is not enforcing the law and saying that it is wrong that shops should be open.
Tonight we have one of the first opportunities for a long time to discuss Sunday trading in the context of this private Bill. I have already said that I believe that the private Bill procedure is inadequate and should not be used for such legislation, but the House has already voted that it should. I disagree with that, but since we have it, it is only right and proper that we should explore whether Sunday trading has become more popular with hon. Members.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am in two minds about the amendment. I do not know whether to support it or to oppose it. What is the attitude of the people in Redbridge? Has there been a survey of the churches and the shops or any general consultation? Can the hon. Gentleman inform us about that so that we can make up our minds?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. I can give him only half an answer, but it is


germane to the amendment. Havering is next to Redbridge and they have similar-minded people. Opinions may have changed, but when Sunday trading was being considered, many people wrote to me saying that they wanted the law to be changed. They were disappointed that time. It may be different in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as I cannot speak for that area. Nor can I speak for Redbridge as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will undoubtedly do when he returns and I hope he will address that point. My knowledge of Ilford is only a fraction of that of my hon. Friend as he has been a distinguished Member of Parliament for 10 years or more. I am sure that an awful lot of people in Ilford like going out on Sundays and would shop if they could. An awful lot of people would trade on Sundays if they could. That is one reason why I tabled the amendment.
I do not want to talk only about Sunday trading. The key point that has been made against the Bill, other than the objection in principle to the legislation being used to change the law, is the impact that it will have on the existing Romford market. Nobody could possibly know what the impact will be. All we know is that the more the new market is allowed to trade in Redbridge, the more impact, logically, that will have on existing businesses.

Mr. Meale: It will have an undoubted effect. The argument has been put in many circles, particularly in local authority circles, that perhaps a one-day market can positively encourage trade. But if it is over a period of six days—and we are talking about 480 units—that will undoubtedly have a major effect on the shopkeepers surrounding this major new marketing operation.

Mr. Squire: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member, who makes his point well.
In our early discussions this evening we touched several times on the compensation and the way in which it had been changed. No one can deny that it has been improved. When the Bill was introduced the compensation was disgraceful and totally inadequate. It has now been amended, and that is welcomed, but only relative to what it was before. The underlying aim of the legislation remains—to prevent the existing market in Romford, which is identical to the 287 other markets throughout the country in constituencies represented by right hon. and hon. Members, from being as successful in the future as it has been in the past. There is no argument about that.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman says that the compensation is now acceptable. I remind him that in the earlier debate it was indicated that the compensation would be paid by the people who ran the market. As the people who run the market fix the rent at a certain level for stallholders, they very much influence that profit figure. So the compensation is completely in their control and may not be realistic compensation at all.

Mr. Squire: That is one of the key points.
Of course, I could say that people in Romford welcome the compensation, and that would be the end of it. But I am arguing for a reduction in the number of days that they will trade which, logically, would lead to a reduction in the compensation. It is a measure of the concern felt by Romford and Havering that I should be saying that, although the compensation will not be sufficient, none the less we wish to see the activities of this new non-charter market, created only by legislation of this Chamber, restricted to a fewer number of days.
I have an open mind as to whether it should be one day or two days and I thought it only right that I put down more than one amendment—indeed, they have wisely been grouped together—because this would, in theory at least, give hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to say which they thought was the better. Both are significant cuts in the six days presently included in the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should also consider what will happen in the area where the market is situated when it is not operating. On different days during the week different activities can take place. The mind boggles at the extent to which—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: They could sell shares.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that they could sell shares. They could be like yuppie street traders. The area could be a car park. Football could be played on it. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter he might find that there are possibilities for large groups of his constituents and other people's constituents to engage in all sorts of leisure activities on that area. If he is a bit unsure of his ground, he should think in terms of what could happen on the market place when it is not being used for a market.

Mr. Squire: Not for the first time, I am indebted to the hon. Member for Bolsover. I promise not to release that in Bolsover, if he promises not to do so in Hornchurch. He rightly said that Redbridge should be more imaginative about the site.

Mr. Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me about compensation? The Government are pushing for the privatisation of local government management services. What will happen if the management services are privatised—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Further consideration adjourned till Thursday 8 February—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Civil Aviation (Borrowing Powers) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

BORROWING POWERS OF CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

10 pm

Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out '£500' and insert '£450'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out from 'million' to end of line 11.

Mr. Wilshire: I move the amendments as one of the Members of Parliament representing Heathrow airport. Some 70,000 electors will be seriously affected by parts of the Bill if certain plans go ahead.
I felt compelled to table the amendments earlier this week because of what has occurred since the Standing Committee considered the Bill on 18 January. On 23 January, British Midland Airways published a report calling for exactly the changes at Heathrow that were discussed when the money resolution was debated on 17 January and when the Committee considered the Bill on 18 January. The report estimates the cost of the changes at Heathrow at £50 million—exactly the sum that I seek to delete, thus making it impossible for the Civil Aviation Authority to spend money on what was suggested in those discussions and in the report.
On Second Reading, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping gave two reasons for wanting the Bill to be enacted, one of which concerns us now. He said:
One project is the central control function; it has been called the tunnels in the sky concept. It involves a major restructuring of the airspace over south-east England and will increase capacity in the terminal manoeuvring area over the south-east by at least 30 per cent. when it is fully in place in 1995."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 20 December 1989; c. 3.]
So far so good. I have no objections if the Bill does that, but the problems start when one asks where the 30 per cent. will land. When the Bill was considered previously, various hon. Members urged the CAA to spend money to enable much of that extra 30 per cent. to land at Heathrow airport.
Two suggestions affecting Heathrow were made in those previous discussions, both of which will need the use of the borrowing powers if they are to be implemented. They are, first, ending the daily runway switch at 3 o'clock and, secondly, allowing more night flights. Those were the common themes that ran through much of the discussion on how further to utilise Heathrow. Surprise, surprise, those were two of the five proposals put forward by an independent airline, which it costed at £50 million, the amount which I seek to delete from the Bill. In case anyone doubts whether an independent airline's proposals for Heathrow affect the CAA, I tell the House that in order to get the details of what was being proposed by British Midland Airways I had to ask the CAA for them. So it is involved and must be stopped.
Let us look in some detail at the purpose of trying to spend the £50 million that I am anxious to prevent being

spent. It is to try to create 75,000 extra slots—extra landings and takeoffs—at Heathrow. That would represent about 22 per cent. additional traffic movement a year through that airport.
The report, in seeking to spend that money, suggests that five alterations should be made. They are that mixed mode operations should alter the runway switching; that there should be a reduction in the lateral separation of aircraft as they are flying around the airport; that there should be new taxiways to make it quicker for aircraft to get off the runways; that there should be an extension of the working day; and that airline efficiency should be improved.
When the Bill was considered previously, those of us who opposed such matters were described unflatteringly. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for example, said in Standing Committee:
The environment lobby groups—comparatively few—suggest that all the people around the airport are up in arms about noise. That is not true. It is a 'not 'in my backyard' approach, because while they are happy to have the M25 and other major roads nearby for their convenience, a lorry driving along the M25 creates much more noise than an aircraft".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 January 1990; c. 6.]
My hon. Friend went on to try to persuade everybody that quieter aircraft would get rid of the problem.
I give that quotation to make the point that my opposition and that of my constituents to some of what is proposed is not a mindless, knee-jerk, "not in my backyard" approach to everything that might be suggested for Heathrow airport. My constituents and I have no objection in principle to some of the money that is to be borrowed being spent to improve air traffic control. Indeed, if that makes life safer for us, we are happy. Nor have we any objection to the money being spent on improving the taxiways, and if it means spending money to improve airline efficiency, we would welcome that.
But if any of the £50 million is to be used to enable mixed mode runway use to take place at Heathrow or to increase the number of night flights, I must make it crystal clear that I and all my constituents, irrespective of party, will fight the proposals tooth and nail.
In trying to persuade the House to clip the wings of the Bill, it is vital that I explain to the Minister in detail what bothers me and thus give him a chance, if he can, to reassure me that the money that is to be spent will not be spent on the aspects to which I have referred.
What is it about mixed mode runway use to which we object so much? At present, at Heathrow airport at 3 o'clock each day the runways are switched round so that a runway used for takeoff in the morning is used for landing aircraft in the afternoon, and vice versa. That came about because an aircraft taking off makes much more noise than an aircraft landing. That is equally true of quieter aircraft and older noisy aircraft; there is still more noise on take-off.
Switching runways was felt to be a way of helping people living near the airport to come to terms with the situation, so that they would have trouble in the morning and less trouble in the afternoon. They would know where they stood and at what times the switch would take place.
Lest the House does not think that that is important, I will explain what goes on in my constituency. People get to know the switching times for the week. If they must go shopping or visit friends, they do it when the nearest runway is noisy. If they want to be at home or do


gardening, they look up the runway arrangements for the week and plan their lives accordingly. So it is as relevant now as when the scheme was first introduced.
If the CAA is tempted to spend some of the money to make it possible for that 3 o'clock rule to be relaxed, it should be warned that not only will it be resisted but that is will be wasting its money. When the Bill was considered previously, two points were made about the arrangement, and we should consider them because they show what happens when people who are not connected with the airport are allowed to try to pose as experts and tell their colleagues what is going on.
When the money resolution was debated, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said of the arrangements there:
I wonder whether my hon. Friends are aware that at Heathrow every day at 3 o'clock the runways are changed, rather like the changing of the guard. That results in about a half-hour gap in operations as the CAA changes the runway pattern."—[Official Report, 17 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 362.]
When the Bill was considered in Committee the following day, my hon. Friend said:
Heathrow is closed for about 20 minutes as the runway configurations are changed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 January 1990; c. 4.]
Within a matter of hours, half an hour had become 20 minutes.
This afternoon, I rang up national air traffic control services to double check that my memory was correct. It confirmed that the switch round at 3 o'clock is almost instantaneous. It does not stop operations and there is no drop in the hourly rate of aircraft movements in that hour. As well as being opposed by us, if the CAA is tempted to spend any of the money in getting rid of the 3 o'clock rule, it will not find any more slots from that manoeuvre.
There seems to be a suggestion that some of the money could be used to increase the number of night flights. The British Midland Airways report does not say that. It says, "Let's not get into the argument about night flights. Let's turn night into day and extend day-time by half an hour at either end." Instead of having a ban from 11·30 pm until 6 am—not a complete ban, but a very severe curb on flights in and out of the airport so that my constituents can sleep—and instead of giving them peace and quiet during those hours in the summer, it is suggested that the hours should be midnight to 5.30 am. Again, it is suggested that that does not matter because aircraft have become quieter. My constituents are not overfussed about whether they are woken up abruptly or gently; they simply object to being woken up. Until my hon. Friend the Minister, the CAA or British Midland Airways can come forward with a silent aircraft, we are implacably opposed in my constituency to any increase in night flights or any tinkering with times, so that, by a sleight of hand, people can say that it is not night time after all.
I have tabled two amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister is keen to have 30 per cent. more aircraft circling over London. I do not necessarily oppose that. British Midland Airways is keen to spend £50 million of the money that we are considering tonight to divert 75,000 of the extra slots to Heathrow. The test we have to apply is to consider for what the money will be used. For what will the £50 million—which my amendment seeks to restrict—be used? If it is to be used for airline efficiency, that is fine. 1 support it if it is to be used for better air traffic control. I also support new taxiways, but unless my hon.
Friend can assure me that the money will not be spent on more night flights, that it will not be used to turn night into day and that it will not be used to scrap the arrangements that have been worked out over the years to protect the interests of my constituents, I hope that all hon. Members will join me in opposing spending money in that way, which will harm my constituents and will do no good to civil aviation.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his ingenuity in tabling amendments to raise some of the serious issues which concern me and all hon. Members who have constituencies around Heathrow airport. With some precision, my hon. Friend quoted some of the comments made on the money resolution and in Committee. I am sure that he has also noted in those debates the words of our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), who put the case well for the residents in the area, although I know that my hon. Friend was not a member of that Committee.
I hope I can go some way to reassure my hon. Friend that the money that we are talking about is not intended to increase the amount of time for night flights. I answered a question from my hon. Friend on that matter just yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has rejected the CAA's argument for a relaxation of the night restrictions, because of some of the well-known fears that my hon. Friend and his neighbours have put to us many times. There is no intention of changing the night-time restrictions until 1992, when they will be reviewed. We will need to see where we go then. The money is not being used for that. I ask my hon. Friend not to press the amendment to a vote.
10.15 pm
I should emphasise that we are not adding £500 million to the CAA's borrowing limit. The CAA is already close to reaching the existing limit of £200 million, which was set in 1980. The limit represents an increase of £300 million. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the CAA is embarking upon an ambitious capital investment programme, amounting to £600 million over the next 10 years. Much of the programme will need to be financed by borrowing, because many of the individual projects are long term, and the CAA will not be able to recoup all the cost from the airlines which use the improved air navigation services which will result until the equipment is fully operational. Therefore, it will take time.
The new equipment includes a new en-route centre costing £200 million, a central control function at £30 million, Scottish radar at £18 million and computer ware at £22 million. The list is substantial. If my hon. Friend were to push his amendment as drafted, it would reduce considerably the borrowing powers of the CAA and impede the programme which it is important to accommodate. It would also mean that we would need further legislation in the not-too-distant future.
The Bill is in two parts. First, it allows for a borrowing requirement of up to £500 million and, in due course, a possible extension to be given by affirmative resolution of the House. Therefore, there will be other opportunities to see whether the CAA is spending the money as my hon. Friend wishes, and whether it is investing and providing the efficient utilisation of air space that we all want.
I commend my hon. Friend on the way in which he presented his proposal. I hope that I have reassured him that the money is not meant to get rid of the mixed mode operation or to end night-time restrictions. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is present, also understands his concern. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendment to a vote. We have heard loud and clear his message on the two issues that he has raised.

Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the Minister has said, and I thank him for it. Perhaps I could do a deal with him. If I were to withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would be

willing on occasions to come and have tea with me at 3 o'clock so that I can remind him of what happens. Perhaps from time to time, or even tonight, if the debate goes on a little longer, he will have a nightcap with me at 11 o'clock or half-past 11 so that he can notice how much quieter Spelthorne becomes when the planes stop rumbling overhead. If that is acceptable to him—I hope that he will nod his head vigorously—

Mr. McLoughlin: indicated assent.

Mr. Wilshire: —I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr Snape: The House will have heard the plea both for late-night drinks and for less aircraft noise from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). We have noted the Minister's reply. Perhaps he does not want to say in public whether he will meet the hon. Gentleman later in his constituency; we can understand if he wants to keep that quiet. The plea of the hon. Member for Spelthorne about aircraft noise is common. Like him, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) speak about it earlier in a cavalier fashion.
I have some questions to put to the Minister. I hope that by so doing I shall not unduly detain the House or prevent the Minister from keeping his late-night tryst with his hon. Friend, either within the confines of the Palace or in his hon. Friend's constituency. Nevertheless, I think that the House needs some reassurances from the Department about the effect of the measure, especially its effect on air safety.
First, can we be assured that the Civil Aviation Authority has enough capital to make the investment that will be necessary for all the new safety and capacity requirements envisaged for the aviation world in the 1990s? A second question arises directly from that one: can the Minister give us any assurances about the accuracy of the CAA's forecasting over the next decade? He will, I hope, agree—or he may agree; I had better not put words into his mouth—that the CAA made a fundamental error in the early 1980s in cutting the number of air traffic controllers, and that it has taken us until now to recover from that decision. I hope that he can assure us that the predictions about aviation in the 1990s will prove more accurate than those of the last decade.
Did the Minister see the "Scottish Eye" programme on Channel 4 on Saturday evening? It raised a number of disturbing questions about air traffic control and aviation safety. The travelling public—or at least, those who watched the programme—will have been alarmed to see air traffic controllers expressing fears about what they described as the cutting of corners in air traffic control training, and referring to considerable under-investment in such training. Perhaps most important and worrying of all was what air traffic controllers said about the under-recording of "near misses": it seems that recording them reflects badly on air traffic control procedures, and on traffic controllers themselves.
The Minister looks a little pained at that. I did not see the programme—although I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House did—but I feel that some of the questions that it raised are serious enough for him to examine and answer.
I was even more concerned—these will be my last words on the subject of the television programme—to learn that the air traffic controllers who were interviewed were silhouetted rather than shown full-face, and that their voices were distorted to avoid identification. If those safety fears exist—and the fact that they were expressed in the programme suggests that they do—why should those expressing them have to do so in semi-secret, in order—as they put it—to avoid persecution and disciplinary problems at work?
Have the Government considered the impact of deregulation in the 1990s, especially on air space? We must bear in mind the fact that more smaller aircraft are likely to use British airports as airlines make use of the fifth-freedom rights that the Government believe will be introduced during the decade. Is the extra demand on air traffic control being catered for, and can the Minister assure us that an increase in the number of smaller aeroplanes will not lead to a reduction in safety measures, or even to more delays?
If my memory serves me right, it was at last year's Conservative party conference that the Secretary of State for Transport announced a new control centre to replace the one at West Drayton. That was one of the few good things he said. One could be even more cynical and say that it was one of the few things he said, but, as cynicism would be inappropriate from Opposition Members—especially at this time of night—I think that we should hear more details from the Minister. Now that the tumultuous applause at the party conference has died down, I think that he should tell us when the work will begin, where the new centre will be and when it will come into operation.

Mr. McLoughlin: Can the hon. Member tell us when the Labour party debated transport at its conference, or whether it is still reviewing its policy?

Mr. Snape: The Minister surprises me. Strictly speaking, that is not a matter for this debate, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to reply briefly. If the Minister had been tuned in to the Labour party conference on the Tuesday—

Mr. McLoughlin: Was the hon. Member there?

Mr. Snape: Actually, I was not there, but I had a very good reason. I was ill and unable to attend the conference at all—the first time for over 20 years that I had been deprived of a fraternal week by the sea.
I think that it was on the Tuesday of the conference week that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made his usual pugnacious contribution, which—remarkably for a Labour party conference, because we do not usually go in for these things—was greeted with a standing ovation. It was not quite as tumultuous as the one that greeted the Minister's right hon. Friend, but then it was not as well rehearsed as the ones—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members on both Front Benches will now set a good example by returning to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Snape: I apologise for having allowed that intervention to lead me astray momentarily. Of course I will come back to the Bill.
Does the Under-Secretary of State, as regulator for what was the British Airports Authority—now BAA plc—intend to have any consultations with the Civil Aviation Authority about the forecast increase in landing charges in the current year? Does he believe that the CAA will take any action, as it did last year, to restrict fare increases? I want briefly to draw his attention to a cutting from the Sunday Times of last week.
In an article headed "Bargain flights grounded as airlines' costs soar", Francis Rafferty pointed out:


The CAA has just spent £50m on a new radar network and £20 million on an air traffic control computer which will be in operation this summer as part of a £600m programme.
The CAA last week said it was relaxing the 10-day notice period to allow airlines to put up fares quickly.
`Our landing fees at Gatwick will increase by 49 per cent. from April,' said Malcolm Naylor, managing director of Bryman Airways. 'Changes in the pricing structure mean that our tiny 46-seaters will be charged £382 per landing, the same as a Jumbo Jet.'
I do not know whether, at this time of night, the Minister can give us any reassurance about the likely impact of such costs on airline fares. I hope that he will concede that it is a worrying trend and not likely to assist the Government's well-publicised, albeit very unsuccessful, battle to reduce inflation.
Finally, I want to draw to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State an aspect of air safety in this country that is often overlooked. I hope that this Bill will go some way to tackling it. I refer to the increasing use of foreign registered and operated airlines leased by British airlines.
My understanding is that these aircraft are neither maintained nor operated to United Kingdom standards; nor are they subject to normal checks and controls by the Civil Aviation Authority. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us—preferably tonight, but, if necessary, at some future time—that the increase in borrowing powers will go some way towards reducing this problem.
Many British aircrew believe that foreign crews leased to British airlines fly longer hours than would be permitted if they were United Kingdom nationals flying with United Kingdom airlines. In some parts of the industry, there is considerable concern that in these cases maintenance does not conform to United Kingdom levels.
There is no point in the Government and the CAA insisting on United Kingdom airlines adopting more stringent maintenance practices and reducing crew flying hours if the result is that airlines bypass the laws and bring in foreign crews and aeroplanes. Many passengers fly with British airlines because they feel safer doing so, and it would surely be a betrayal of their faith and trust if, through Government policies, there was even greater use of foreign aircraft in the future.
As a side issue, we allow crews and aircraft to operate in this country from countries that would not allow us to operate there. I refer especially to the United States of America. Certain aeroplanes that are certified for use in that country fly in the United Kingdom—one has done so for over two years now—without any United Kingdom certification, whereas the reverse would not be permitted in the United States of America. In our view, it is not something that should be permitted here.
Although I have asked the Minister a considerable number of questions, I hope that he will be able to answer them, if not this evening, at least in the very near future—in which case the Opposition believe that the Bill should receive its Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: In the Second Reading Committee, 1 said that I had no objection to the principle of the Bill. I still hold that opinion and I do not criticise its basic concept.
When I entered the Chamber I intended to add to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) when he moved his amendments seeking to reduce the limit on borrowing, because I wished to comment on the actual process of borrowing which, after all, is the real content of the Bill. However, I felt that it might damage my hon. Friend's comments and the Minister's reply if I raised yet a different issue and the matter was not, therefore, dealt with separately.
Although wishing the Bill good speed, I still wish to express my concern about the way in which it is likely to operate in practice. I give my hon. Friend the Minister fair warning that when he comes to the House with the affirmative resolutions that will be necessary before each of the individual tranches of borrowing is made, I shall want to know more than simply the amount and the general purpose.
As I tried to make clear at an earlier stage, the Bill provides for the CAA to borrow in a range of currencies. It does not state that it must spend those currencies in the country to which they apply. If the CAA borrows Dutch guilders, for example, it does not have to buy Dutch radar equipment. It can purchase British equipment. However, that involves changing the guilders back into sterling. Given the volatility of sterling these days, there is almost certain to be either a gain or a loss on the process over a period.
It was to that point that I sought to direct my hon. Friend the Minister during the Second Reading Committee debate. Although he answered my question, I should not have raised the matter again tonight except that, frankly, the more one reads his answer, the less intelligible it is in providing a serious answer to my question about the amount of money that is being put at the disposal of the CAA as compared with the nominal amount that it can borrow.
In the Second Reading Committee, when I asked the Minister whether it would be possible to engage in such operations, he replied no. On careful reading of the Hansard, I have concluded that he meant to say, "Yes, they cannot do it." That is a different matter. He will be faced with the difficulty of explaining how sums that were borrowed in one currency, but were not spent on one occasion in the country of that currency, will affect the total borrowing requirement of the CAA.
My hon. Friend explained to us in the Committee that there will not be an addition to the borrowing powers of the CAA of, say, £500 million or £750 million, but that the CAA will borrow in anticipation of the revenues that it will receive from those who use the airports. I am told that those revenues are paid entirely in sterling. There will be a major accounting problem. My hon. Friend seems to suggest that that will not be so. If the CAA receives its revenues in a variety of currencies, the position will be even more complicated. Perhaps he will clarify the matter.
When affirmative resolutions are brought before the House, shall we know in what currency the original borrowing was made, in which country the purchases will be made and, if there is a difference between the amount borrowed and the amount spent, the purpose for which the difference was used? My hon. Friend may well regret that complication when orders come before the House.
I do not wish to detain the House further or to oppose the Bill, but I give my hon. Friend fair warning of a complication which, to some extent, is of the Government's making.

Mr. Michael Jack: In welcoming the measure, I wish to take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend some questions about how it will affect air services to the north-west—in particular, Manchester airport and Speke airport at Liverpool, which may be expanded.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Conservative Members from the north-west have fought for services into Manchester airport. Will he, either now or by letter later, spell out how Manchester may benefit, particularly in air traffic control facilities, from the equipment that the additional borrowing powers may be used to purchase? Many people use Manchester airport to begin their holidays. They are tired of the endless excuse that their flight is delayed because of air traffic control problems. We are trying to win additional services to Manchester to take away some of the burden from overcrowded airports in the south, to which other hon. Members have referred.
Will my hon. Friend respond to the points that I have raised on behalf of air service users in the north-west?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall respond to as many of the points raised as possible. I begin by welcoming the general approach of the Opposition to the Bill, which is important for the overall future of air traffic control and air safety.
When we discuss air safety, it is important to put in perspective the record of the United Kingdom. We give safety the highest priority. That can never be compromised. There is no doubt that there is sufficient money to cover safety requirements.
The number of air misses related to aircraft flying hours has halved over the past 10 years. I do not take comfort from that, because I should like the number to be much lower. However, it is important to put it in context. We have a reporting system, and all air misses are investigated. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
Like the hon. Gentleman, I did not see the television programme to which he referred, but I shall seek to find out a little more about some of the points that were made. I am told that a representative from the CAA said that safety was its business and that it was not concerned just with carrying passengers, but with carrying them safely and making sure that aircraft get from A to B safely. There can be no doubt about our commitment to air safety. That is fundamental.
The hon. Gentleman was critical of our failure to forecast growth as well as might have been done. That is always a problem with forecasting. Sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong. Air traffic has increased by about 48 per cent. during the past 10 years. It would have been a brave person who made that forecast. Air traffic has grown by 7 per cent. in the past 12 months, due partly to our liberalisation policies, which have meant cheaper transport and more people travelling by plane.

Mr. Snape: I am perfectly prepared to accept that to forecast a traffic growth of 48 per cent. in the 1980s would have been fairly difficult, but I was complaining about the fact that the CAA got it so wrong that, until five years ago, it was reducing the number of air traffic controllers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was a fundamental error.

Mr. McLoughlin: A lot of effort has gone into reversing the shortage of air traffic controllers.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the training of air traffic controllers. We cannot make safety a high priority and then cut the training programmes for air traffic controllers. We are considering the possibility of training people in different aspects of air traffic control, such as the flying tunnels concept, as opposed to airport work. I hope that that will help to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. North (Mr. Griffiths) made an important point that I am sorry I was unable to clarify in Committee. The CAA can already borrow in foreign currencies and the Bill extends its powers to ecu. One reason for that is that much of its revenue from Eurocontrol will come in ecu. It needs Treasury approval for any borrowing in foreign currencies, and that will be clearly shown in its accounts. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied, he will be able to make his complaints when we deal with the affirmative resolution to increase the sum to £750 million.
There is no doubt about the importance that the Government attach to regional airports. We are committed to the role that they can play. It is nonsense that someone from Derbyshire, Manchester or Sheffield should have to travel to London to join a flight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a meeting in the United States on that issue and we hope to make further progress. If the matter had been easy to resolve, it would have been resolved a long time ago. Regional airports can play a vital role in air traffic control and in making travel more convenient for our constituents. My constituents probably use the East Midlands airport, but we are not too far from Manchester.
I hope that hon. Members will give this useful and valuable Bill its Third Reading. It gives the CAA the flexibility that it needs to organise the finance for its ambitious and vital capital development programme.

Mr. Snape: I made three or four other points in the course of my speech—deregulation and smaller aircraft and the impact of fifth-freedom rights on United Kingdom airspace; landing charges and their impact on fares throughout the United Kingdom; and the use of foreign-registered planes and crews. I do not expect an answer immediately on those points, but I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he will consider them and write to me in due course.

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman in greater detail about the three points that I have not covered, particularly the last one.
I was not wholly surprised at the amount of debate which the Bill has generated, even though it could easily be seen as a mere technical measure both in Committee and the House. Aviation is an important subject. I fully understand that, whenever hon. Members have the opportunity to debate it, they use it to bring to the Government's attention some of the issues which are important to them and their constituents. It is right that they should do so, and we shall take note of the number of comments made not only by Members who have airports in the vicinity of their constituency, but by those who would like more development of regional airports, to which the Government are wholly committed and feel is important.
In the light of those debates, I commend the Bill to the House and trust that hon. Members will agree to give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At column 405 of yesterday's Hansard, 31 January, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) complained to Mr. Speaker that he understood that, without any notification, the Minister had made an attack on him, and that he regretted that. I understand that, in the previous debate today, the hon. Member for Bradford, South attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) without warning. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule whether it is in order for a failed Minister, failed Member and failed Member of the European Parliament, with one of the most marginal seats in the country, to complain one day that he is being attacked without warning, and the very next day to attack one of my right hon. Friends without any warning?

Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that point of order is in order, is it in order for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to use exactly the same type of language about my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?

Mr. Michael Stern: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and I did the hon. Member for Bradford, South the courtesy of advising him that we intended to raise this issue. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule whether it is customary in the House to raise points of order affecting individual members of other parties, without doing what we had the courtesy to do?

Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With reference to that same extract from Hansard, is it in order for a colleague in the House to eulogise his past achievements when his track record indicates—as I personally experienced as a small business man at the time—that he was quite outstandingly the worst Minister with responsibility for small businesses that there has ever been? For such a person to present a case in the House about one of the finest Ministers there has ever been is surely a gross error. Does the House recall that, prior to the hon. Member for Bradford, South being a Minister with responsibility for small businesses, he took on the job after the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) had jumped into the Mersey rather than support the Labour Government in their desire to join the European Community?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Eulogies of past achievements are not unknown in this place. I can confirm to all the hon. Members who raised points of order that it is customary, if an hon. Member wishes to criticise another hon. Member, for him to give notice to him or her before doing so.

First Aid Training (Schools)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. John Browne: It is always a great honour to have a subject chosen for discussion by the House. I am grateful that my subject was selected for debate this evening. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is here to reply to the debate—first, because, as we all know, he has a high reputation for care in the community, particularly of school pupils. Secondly, I well remember his able presentation of prizes to winners of the St. John Ambulance three-cross award at Britannic house a few weeks ago	an award sponsored by British Petroleum. I remember how well he did so, how well it was received and how well the event was organised by the director general of St. John Ambulance, Mr. Robert Balchin, and his able wife who organised the school pupils in a convincing way. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with that.
I wish to declare two interests—one in the health industry and the other as the unremunerated parliamentary representative for the Order of St. John, which is the parent body of the St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade. The subject before us is first aid in schools. Two points are involved. The first is the teaching of first aid to school pupils. Under the new national curriculum, that could be included in the optional subjects. The second point is that some core subjects lend themselves to a certain amount of first aid. For example, to facilitate safe instruction in science there may be some leaning towards protection and first aid. Another example of physical education, where first aid might be involved in swimming activities.
I welcome the fact that the National Curriculum Council is to give guidance on first aid. I also welcome any moves in schools towards the teaching of first aid with the one, two and three-cross awards of St. John for children of six, 10, 12 and beyond. That has been highly successful.
The main thrust of the debate relates not so much to the teaching of first aid, although that is important as to the first aid cover available for school pupils. The Government have wisely pushed preventive medicine in diet, screening processes and so on. I welcome the fact that the National Health Service is being streamlined, which makes it more efficient and effective in offering health care.
First aid is part of the whole process of preventive medicine. If it is correctly administered, first aid can minimise damage—for example, by restraining the loss of blood which, if excessive, could lead to brain damage. It can also reduce the long-term knock-on costs to the NHS. If an injury is properly treated immediately it happens, there may be less long-term damage to the patient and therefore much less long-term cost to the NHS. Of course, the most important prerequisite is that it is correctly applied, so training is absolutely vital. If it is wrongly applied, it could be extremely dangerous and could even cause death. For example, if someone with spinal or neck injuries is moved incorrectly, he could easily be killed.
Training in first aid is offered by the British Red Cross Society and the St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade. The latter is ably directed by Mr. Robert Balchin, who is well known to my hon. Friend the Minister. First aid means the local availability of qualified first aiders.
Training to become a qualified first aider takes about three days. First aid also means the location and the contents of first aid boxes. It also means the publication of lists and telephone numbers of local general practitioners and local casualty stations. We must always remember that first aid is not simply the ability to dial 999 for the emergency services; it is much more than that.
There are more than 250,000 accidents in the United Kingdom every year, which represent a serious drain on the resources of the National Health Service. That is a clear example of the need for the wider availability of qualified first aid cover. To meet that historical but increasing need, previous Governments introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which requires that places employing more than 150 people must have at their disposal at least one qualified first aider.
When I examined that legislation, I was stunned to discover that no such cover is required in schools. There are some 8·5 million school pupils in this country, and the absence of any legal requirement for first aid cover in respect of those young people concerns me. I would have thought that a school was inherently more dangerous than a bank. Short of a hold-up, a bank is a relatively safe place to work. A member of the staff could get electrocuted by a computer, but the same is true of a pupil using a school's computer, which might be less well insulated electrically.
Young people of school age are also more prone to accidents. It is often at school that, for the first time, young people light matches and illicitly smoke cigarettes—when there is a risk of their clothes catching fire and of other accidents. Youngsters also swallow things that they should not, break their legs, and so on. The school age population is more prone to accidents than the employees of an industrial or commercial company.
The record shows that last year there were more than 8,000 accidents in schools—some of them fatal, and all of them serious. That figure does not include minor accidents. But while there is a legal requirement for first aid cover in industry, no such requirement exists in respect of schools, at which 8·5 million pupils work. Instead, the Government rely on guidelines that are essentially voluntary.
In the past, Governments have resisted the temptation to legislate, preferring to rely on voluntary co-operation. What is the result of that approach? The St. John Ambulance Brigade undertook a survey of 13,000 out of the country's 23,500 schools—18,500 of which are primary schools. St. John received 4,256 replies, which statistically is an excellent sample. What is not so excellent is what the sample reveals.
It showed that only 32 per cent. of schools follow the Government's voluntary guidelines. Worse still is the mirror image of the 68 per cent. of schools that do not follow them. The survey also revealed that 76 per cent.—or more than three quarters—of all schools do not have the first aid cover that is required by law of commerce and industry under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It showed also that 20 per cent., or one fifth, of the schools have no cover by a qualified first aider. Those figures suggest that the Government's guidelines are not being observed but are being honoured in the breach.
The guidelines also require the display of lists of local general practitioners and casualty stations, but the survey shows that 72 per cent., or just under three quarters, of schools do not display such information. Indeed, 63 per cent. of the schools do not even have the lists.
In summary, the facts show that when schools are not required to have the same cover as industry, they do not bother. Why is there such discrimination? Why do the Government allow a voluntary regime for schools while there are legal requirements for industry and commerce?
The Government guidelines are not working. Obviously there is a need to strengthen the law, beef up the health and safety at work regulations, extend them to schools and make the voluntary guidelines legal requirements. That is a priority need, as was demonstrated in the last Session of Parliament, when I tabled an early-day motion which received the cross-party support of no fewer than 336 hon. Members. It was the 11th most strongly supported early-day motion since records began. Surely that must tell the Government that the House really feels that action should be taken as a matter of priority.
I urge the Government to amend the legislation to bring schools up to the standards of places of work. As I said, Ministers have resisted demands for change on two grounds—cost and excessive work load on the schools. The costs are very small. The training to qualify as a first aider costs roughly £70. A qualification lasts for three years, so for a school of 150 or more pupils and staff, the cost would be £70 spread over three years, or about £25 a year. I appreciate that the Government have made many changes in education, including the introduction of the national curriculum and first aid provision would require extra effort on the part of school administrators and staff. I do not say it lightly, but I believe that that added duty should be introduced because it is a priority—even above some of the duties they are already being asked to undertake.
In allocating that requirement I urge my hon. Friend to consider three things: need, priority and precedent. As I have said, the need is obvious. There are 8,000 serious accidents in schools each year; 8·5 million schoolchildren are vulnerable and, under the voluntary system, three quarters of the schools are not offering the first aid cover that is required legally of industry and commerce. The priority is that old adage, "safety first", and 336 right hon. and hon. Members believe that we must put safety first now as a matter of priority. Finally, there are precedents. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act already applies to industry and commerce, so why should it not apply to schools?
I am asking the Minister to overturn any advice he may have received to continue avoiding the extension of the regulations on the grounds of cost and excess work load. I am asking him to act now in response to a really obvious market need and in response to demands from the House. I am asking him to give 8·5 million schoolchildren in the United Kingdom safety first in their schools now. I very much look forward to a robust reply from my hon. Friend. I hope that he will fill that urgent need for schoolchildren and the priority demand by Members of the House to put safety first.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on raising on the Adjournment a topic of the greatest interest and importance to us all—the safety of

schoolchildren. His championship of first aid in schools is well known. I hope that what I have to say will give him and other hon. Members some reassurance about the seriousness with which the Government approach this question.
The debate covers two separate but related matters—the provision of first aid in schools and the teaching of first aid in the curriculum. I shall deal with each in turn.
First, the debate covers the regulations that govern the provision of first aid in places of employment and how these relate to the situation in schools and other educational establishments. I am sure that the House will agree that, for any such arrangements to be effective, they must be seen as primarily the responsibility of those who are directly providing the services concerned. That is, indeed, the case under our law. The responsibility falls, in the case of maintained schools, to the local education authorities to ensure that proper arrangements are made, and, in the case of other sorts of school, to the relevant governors or other providers of the schools.
I shall go into more detail later about the nature of those legal responsibilities and the moral responsibilities that stem from them. Meanwhile, what implication has this for the role of the Department of Education and Science and other education departments?
There is, first, a valuable inspectorial function to be carried out, and I pay tribute to members of Her Majesty's inspectorate for the work done in their day-to-day monitoring of the system and in the advice they give, drawing on that experience, to authorities.
Secondly, there is a further role for the Department and for other education departments in making sure that the system has available to it an up-to-date and useful range of guidance on all important safety matters. My Department's "Safety in Education" series has provided regular bulletins of advice for teachers to help them to be more aware of the kind of hazards they are likely to meet at their work and to cope with accidents and emergencies occurring at school. I pay tribute to the many teachers who have displayed great presence of mind and great practical skill in some very difficult situations in recent days and particularly last week during the great storm.
We also issue a range of publications going into more detail on particular aspects of safety. The most recent of these, concerned with safety in outdoor education, was published last year. It has been our practice to include in each of these publications a specific section on first aid.
Nevertheless, a little while ago it became clear to the Department that local education authorities and others would benefit from more specific guidance on various matters concerning the provision of first aid. Accordingly, following an extensive consultative exercise that included some extremely valuable assistance given by the St. John Ambulance and the British Red Cross Society, the Department of Education and Science, together with the Welsh Office and in co-operation with the Health and Safety Executive, sent all chief education officers in England and Wales a document of guidance on arrangements for first-aid provision in schools and colleges. At the same time, the document was sent to relevant organisations in the non-LEA sector.
It may be useful if I look briefly at the main content of that document. First, it provided advice on an issue that clearly concerns hon. Members—the background of legislation, regulation and common law. In particular it drew attention to the desirability of paying heed to Health


and Safety Executive guidelines on such matters as the contents of first-aid boxes, and specifically recommended that education authorities should take account of criteria laid down in the approved code of practice stemming from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Next, the document gave information on other relevant publications and other useful materials, such as films and videos produced by a range of agencies with an interest in this area, including the Health and Safety Executive, the British Red Cross Society and St. John Ambulance.
Next, we thought it right to lay emphasis on the resources needed for proper first-aid provision and in particular on the need for suitable training for teachers. As the document says:
it has been a long-standing principle that all teachers should have a basic working knowledge of first aid and for them to be able to recognise situations where medical advice is necessary. It is highly desirable that a proportion of the teaching staff of every school and college should have attended a course of training and have acquired a relevant certificate.
That clearly states the Department's policy over the years on the importance of proper training for teachers in each establishment. The document describes in greater detail what should be done and gives some practical recommendations about particular types of training that may be helpful.
The next section of the document provides guidance on the very important question of procedures, including arrangements for contact with medical and other emergency services, and suggests some practical measures, such as displaying up-to-date lists of addresses and telephone numbers, which could easily be followed and with little resource implicaton. Advice is also provided on procedural matters such as the recording of accidents, which is a most important consideration if lessons for the future are to be learned. There follow sections on the prevention of accidents, on the particular problems created by the AIDS virus and a reference to the particular treatment needed for children with special needs of various kinds.
The final component in the document is a checklist of 15 important questions, which were aimed at individual establishments rather than local education authorities, with the intention of prompting them to think again about their practices and procedures.
I hope that that brief account of the Department's most recent comprehensive publication will reassure my hon. Friend that this is not an issue which the Department is reluctant to consider or on which we are backward in giving a lead.

Mr. John Browne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend allow me to proceed'? I have little time left.
As my hon. Friend said, our friends in the St. John Ambulance organisation	like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Mr. Robert Balchin—reported to us last year on the results of a survey that they had undertaken of a large number of schools, and which, among other things, looked at how the schools were in practice implementing certain of the Department's recommendations, including some of those that I mentioned.
The picture that emerged was mixed, with generally good practice on some issues, such as the response to the AIDS threat, and a less obviously adequate response on other matters, including some simple ones such as the

provision of notices about emergency procedures. I am bound to say that, like my hon. Friend, I was disappointed overall by what it indicated—that there was some way to go before we could be confident that the schools and other educational establishments were doing all that they reasonably could to observe the best practice.
My Department has accordingly undertaken a consultation exercise, on the basis of the St. John's findings, with a number of relevant national bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Welsh Office and the main local education authority associations, in order to consider jointly what further steps might sensibly be taken.
We have already received a number of responses to that, but the consultative exercise is not yet complete and it will need to be followed by careful consideration of the options for change or further action.
One obvious subject for further consideration is the regulatory background to first-aid provision in schools. Perhaps I could remind the House what the present position broadly is, as there is a certain amount of mythology on that point. First, it is not the case, as is sometimes claimed, that schools or other educational establishments are exempt from the general provisions of the main relevant statute, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on this important point. Like all other places where people are employed, they are covered by those general requirements, which require employers to have regard for the health arid safety not only of employees who are on their premises but of other persons. In the case of schools and colleges, the latter category obviously includes students or pupils who are on the premises.
The confusion has arisen because of the detailed provisions on first aid set out in the approved code of practice accompanying the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981, which come from the 1974 Act. The requirement concerning provision for 150 or more employees is in the code of practice. Again, in the nature of things, that requirement is unlikely to bite other than on the largest schools.
But it is sometimes forgotten that there is another and, in my view, at least equally important legal provision that applies to the schools but does not apply to employment generally. That is the common law doctrine of in loco parentis, which has the effect of placing on those responsible for schools a duty of care towards pupils in their charge of a kind that a responsible parent would expect to carry out.
That is a fact that we shall certainly have to bear in mind in considering the outcome of the consultative process to which I have referred. Would an overt attempt to equate educational institutions more closely with industrial and commercial premises with respect to safety be a positive move in practice? I stress that we shall look at the issue in an open-minded way.
Inevitably, an important consideration in looking at the way forward will be the issue of resources, whether of staffing costs or others, and we shall have to pay careful attention to what the local authority providers say to us on that point. I am sure that there will be many opportunities in the House to look further into those matters.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of first-aid education for pupils taking place in schools. I have no doubt that schools have a significant part to play in providing young people with guidance about first aid.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has estimated that over 500,000 people are admitted to hospital each, year for accidental or other violent injuries. A further 11 million new cases are dealt with by hospital accident and emergency departments annually. Those figures demonstrate the value of first-aid skills among the general population. There is no doubt that they can help enormously in relation to both minor and life-threatening accidents and injuries.
My hon. Friend spoke of the preventive value of first aid in terms of saving health and resources that can be put to better use. He also referred to the work of St. John Ambulance in connection with first-aid education in schools and the fact that he and I recently attended the launch of the new St. John Ambulance video on emergency aid for use in its three cross award.
My Department has been associated with that award since its inception in 1984, the scheme having been launched originally by my noble Friend Lord Joseph when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that since then, over 200,000 children have taken part in the award scheme. St. John Ambulance is to be congratulated on the success of the award in such a relatively short space of time.
Whether or not schools cover first aid in the curriculum is, of course, at present a matter for individual schools to determine. That is likely in the main still to be the case under the new national curriculum, but there will be opportunities for schools to cover first aid as a direct result of a number of provisions contained in the national curriculum.
All the foundation subject working groups so far established have been asked to cover relevant aspects of health and safety education in their recommendations. My hon. Friend referred to specific aspects of the national curriculum.
In recent years, education about first aid has increasingly featured in the context of personal and social education. I know that this is often the case with the St. John Ambulance three-cross award. PSE is an area which the Government regard as particularly important. As a result, the National Curriculum Council is in the process of issuing guidance to all schools on the place and content of PSE in the curriculum. I understand that it is likely to include guidance on the need for education about first aid, and that is also to be welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.